Retaining India’s Strategic Autonomy
Dr GEETA MADHAVAN
Published in The New Indian Express Wednesday 9 September 2015
There
is a constant attempt by Western, especially American, strategic analysts and
think tanks to disentangle the seemingly complex threads of India’s foreign
policy. The political establishments of the United States and other major
Western powers have lately shifted their policies vis-a-vis India in an
endeavour to draw India closer to them as part of their ongoing attempt to
re-align the balance in South and South East Asia. This part of their strategy
developed since the emergence of China as a formidable Asian economic superpower. They have developed
deep concerns over China providing military and other infrastructural
assistance to the smaller nations in this region and thereby exerting its influence
over them. Therefore , India is seen as
perhaps the only nation that can in reality “stand up” to China and it is in
this context that they have formulated and devised agreements signifying partnership with India. This does not mean
that India is in any way an economic or military equal to China but India is seen
by them as capable of counteracting
China’s policy of wooing the smaller nations and creating a band of
allies to secure and sustain Chinese
supremacy in the region. The Chinese “One Belt One Road “ initiative that
focuses on connectivity over sea and land ensures a bigger role for China in international
affairs and this too has posed a major
challenge for Western power balance and trade . Therefore, there is an effort to prod
India to be a more assertive player in the region. However, India’s foreign
policy is not to be directed by the vested interests of others and it is in
this frame that India retains its strategic autonomy much to the chagrin of
these powers.
Although
China has on several occasions acted in manner that has raised India’s concerns,
these actions have not been construed as posing imminent danger to India. Besides,
India has been perceptive in identifying that while there are areas in which
there may be divergent interests and even conflicting views like border issues,
autonomy of Tibet and several other matters related to trade, demographic
profiling and river-water sharing, there
are also areas where Chinese and Indian perceptions definitely converge .Economic
cooperation between India and China will set off a new momentum in the region,
a momentum that could be discomfiting to other powers outside the region. While
China views the US as an extra regional power jostling for continual supremacy
in the Indian Ocean, India views both the United State and China as
participants in India’s economic future. Therefore, maintaining strategic
autonomy is imperative for India to ensure it is not subject to any initiative
or action that is detrimental to India’s self interest. For instance, in the
Indian Ocean region, India has shown great restraint in not allowing extra
regional powers to dictate its initiatives and actions. India is not party to
the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) , a political commitment between
nations spearheaded by the United States that gives powers upon receiving
“reliable” intelligence to board ships,
inspect and seize on the high seas. India
has been critical of such “Initiatives” the lie outside the purview of the
United Nations and is a violation of the freedom of the high
seas.
Respecting
the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity is apparent in India’s
policy in the region : whether it is
supporting the right of a change of leadership by the people of Sri Lanka, the
decision to desist to interfere in the long and painful transition of the political
establishment in Nepal, the rejection of military intervention in Maldives – India
has respected the need for the people of these countries to choose their own
leaders. Foreign policy has been directed in a manner in which India is seen as neither a threatening
hegemonic regional power by its smaller neighbours nor as a weak power that is reluctant
to lead. Often this has lead to criticism
from within India and outside, and seen as
India’s reluctance to exploit the situation, to support leaders who seem
favourable to India or to play an active role in regime change. Some
writers cite China as a clever opportunist which
rushes into the vacuum created in countries in turmoil- as in an unsettled Afghanistan and Nepal and
criticise India for being slow to seize opportunities to its advantage.
International
law principles to which India consistently adheres do not support interference
in the internal affairs of nations. Besides, innumerable interferences by major
powers masquerading in the guise of humanitarian interventions have led to
global disquietude and human suffering rather than alleviated the miseries they set out to mitigate. It is in this
context that India prefers, when called upon, to offer logistic help and aid in
building infrastructures by which strife ridden countries can reconstruct their
economies rather than reestablish and rebuild by direct political
interferences. Obviously this does not
suit those powers who want India to be their lynchpin of their South Asian policies
and who seek to conduct the containment of Chinese expansion into global trade
through India. Were India and China to form strong economic alliances it would
send the western dominated markets into
a spin.
It
is a pity that some members of the strategic community of India now propogate a view that the citizens should play a
greater role in formulating foreign policies. Nothing could be more dangerous
than that for a nation as diverse as India. Undoubtedly, the needs and expectations of the citizens
are responsible for domestic policies
and they are major participants in the decisions that affects every facet of
their daily lives. Formulation of foreign policies, however, should not become
matters of public debate as other primal and parochial considerations will
affect the outcome. A sovereign nation’s acts of comity with other nations are
based on national interest and cordial relations are sustained by an understanding
between them to create a climate where
they can exist peacefully. An asymmetrical situation can lead to rancour among
nations and this especially true of India which is surrounded by several
geographically smaller nations that are economically dependent on India. There
are many levels of interactions in diplomacy and when devising a foreign policy
with its neighbours big and small , India has been sensitive to issues relating
to water sharing, energy requirements, climate change and numerous other
factors. To open these issues for public debate will not work in India’s
interest because national interest will be held hostage to self interest of the
states within India. Foreign policy is not always about domination and posturing,
about deciding what is good for the other country driven by self aggrandizement.
Foreign policy is the art of balancing the absolute interests of one’s own
country with friendliness, comity and goodwill towards neighbouring countries.
India’s foreign policy should never be driven by internal considerations alone
nor dominated by external influences. Strategic autonomy, as practiced by India,
is what will always keep it in an assertive position without pushing it into a situation
of becoming merely a loyal vassal to any other major western power.
