India’s Changing
Foreign Policy after 2014
The likely defeat of the Congress Party in India’s 16th
general election has prompted considerable debate about the impact a change of guard
in Delhi will have on foreign policy. What would India’s foreign policy look
like in the event of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP)
government coming to power in 2014, either on its own or with the support of
allies?
Many in India and abroad believe that India’s foreign
policy is poised for a “sea change” under a BJP government after 2014,
especially one headed by the strident Narendra Modi.
According to Sreeram Chaulia , professor and dean at
the Jindal school of International Affaire in Sonipat , India, foreign policy
under modi-led government will see greater emphasis on commercial diplomacy,
“more assertive action in response to [Pakistan backed] cross-border terrorism,
”greater attention to long-term policy planning with a view to formulating
grand strategy for scenarios in 2020 and beyond, “a bigger role for the
military in shaping India’s national security and formulating doctrines,” and a
GREATER say for the states in the government’s formulation and execution of
foreign policy.
Not much is known of Modi’s foreign policy thinking.
Even the BJP’s election manifesto, which is said to carry his “definite
imprint,” sheds little light; just a over a page documents is devoted to
foreign policy.
A controversial and polarizing figure, Modi has often
poured scorn on the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government’s
“soft” response to terrorist attacks emanating from Pakistan and Chinese
incursions into Indian Territory. This
has contributed to a widely held perception that he will be tough in his
response to Pakistan-backed terrorism and would not baulk at the use of force.
Modi is also expected to take a tougher stand in dealing with India’s territorial
disputes with Pakistan and Chine.
What “though” might mean in practice is unclear at
this point, and how far Modi will go is hotly debated.
Some have even
argued that he may reserve the right to use tactical nuclear weapons against
Pakistan in response to a major terrorist attack. Most, of course, don’t go
that far.
According to
Chaulia, in dealing with terrorism emanating from Pakistan, modi could go for
“clinical counter-strikes” and covert operations, including targeted
assassinations of key figures in the Pakistan-based, anti-India terrorist
network. But he “will try to avoid war with Pakistan at all costs because of
the obvious danger of nuclear exchange, “he says.
While agreeing that Modi will appear tough with
Pakistan, T P Sreenivasan, a former diplomat who spent 37 years with the Indian
Foreign Service, argues that “this
toughness will not go beyond a point” as he will realize soon that with “war
not an option anymore, a tough approach will go only so far.”
In fact, foreign policy under Modi, Sreenivasan policy
under Modi, Sreenivasan says, “will not change in any significant way.” It
would be “continuity rather than change, because former diplomats would be
advising Modi, foreign policy not being his forte.” Changes if any will be in
nuance and not fundamental in nature.
Indeed, a striking feature of India’s foreign policy
is its continuity. Certainly there have been shifts, but as Manjari Chatterjee
Miller points out in a recent article in Foreign Affairs, “the broad shape of
Indian foreign policy has remained the same for nearly five decades.” Even when
shifts do occur, they are not “sudden,” “have had little to do with the prime
minister’s political ideology.
It is in emphasis and style rather than substance that
the Modi government’s foreign policy will differ from that of the UPA. Modi
will be less patient with Pakistan and can be expected to base his relations
with all of India’s neighbours (and not just Pakistan and China) on reciprocity.
But like another BJP prime minister, Atal Bihari
Vajpayee (1998-2004), Modi would try to reach a final settlement with
Pakistan on Kashmir, Chaulia says.
In fact, Modi is reported to have already reached out
to Pakistan by sending his emissaries to confer with its leadership.
Vajpayee was assertive in his conduct of foreign
policy. Within three months of coming to power, his government conducted a
string of nuclear tests, declared Indian to be a nuclear ambiguity. His
government conducted a string of nuclear tests, declared Indian to be a nuclear
weapon n state, and abandoned the decades –old policy of nuclear ambiguity. His
government’s relations with Pakistan were often tense; the two countries fought
a near-war at Kargil in 1999 and tensions sorted repeatedly over major
terrorist attacks in India. Following a terrorist attack on India’s parliament
in 2001, the Vajpayee government ordered a massive, year-long mobilization of the
security forces along the India-Pakistan border to push Pakistan to dismantle
the anti-India terrorist network on its soil.
This toughness notwithstanding, Vajpayee also set in
motion a peace process with Pakistan, engage in dialogue with it at the highest
level, reach a ceasefire agreement that reminds the force and initiated a
direct bus service between the two countries.
Modi’s critics point out that unlike Vajpayee he is
not liberal in his outlook as has not demonstrated the vision that would be
required to pursue a lasting peace.
Modi is expected to allow state governments a greater
say in the formulation and execution in foreign policy. He has said the states
that have special links with other countries whether due to shared borders,
historical links, or cultural communalities should be consulted in framing
policies and crafting strategies with that country. He has spoken of India’s 30
states as partners in his governments’ execution of foreign policy and of
wanting to entrust them with “The task of foreign beneficial foreign relations
with at least 30 corresponding partner countries.”
Overall, Modi is likely to be comfortable with
federalizing foreign policy only with regard to this state courting foreign
investment. On other matters it will be his government that calls the shots.
Of course, all this assumes that Modi will be able to
form a government, on its own or with allies. Should the assumption prove
false, then India may wall end up with a coalition of regional and national
parties.
Such a coalition is very likely to be unstable, with
little in common among it’s constituents. Pre-occupied with survival and
pulling in different directions, expect Indian foreign policy to be somewhat
chaotic, lacking the robustness or purpose that could be expected of a strong
BJP government.
No comments:
Post a Comment