By Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Giri
A senior official, the Press Secretary of Pentagon, Pat Ryder, said in a news conference on 13 December that the US has made great progress in its defence ties with India and is looking forward to making further progress in military-to-military engagement in 2024. Note that the Pentagon is the metonym for US Defence Department. It is the most important and powerful institution of the US government, deriving from its role as the nerve centre of the country’s armed forces.
At the same time, Indian media reports that US President Joe Biden has declined the invitation to be the Chief Guest at the Republic Day parade next month. Also, India has voted for a resolution that calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, whereas the US has voted against. It is also noteworthy that India also voted for two amendments, one moved by Austria and the other by USA. The Amendment Resolution proposed by USA made specific mention of “Heinous terrorist attacks by Hamas that took place on Israel on 7 October 2023 and the taking up hostages”. The Austrian amendment named Hamas holding Israeli hostages. It is another thing that both amendments were dropped as they did not receive the required number of votes.
Unarguably, in international politics, countries conduct their foreign policies in pursuance of their national interests, reflecting the values and norms they espouse and stand for, as well as the rules they adhere to. But the moot question is how the national interest is defined and realised in short and long term. In the formative years of independent India, the first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru conceptualised the country’s foreign policy while other ministers were busy in uniting and stabilising the nascent independent country.
On reflection, experts, scholars and observers argue that the policy of Non-alignment, the hallmark of Nehru’s foreign policy proved costly for the country besides it not being maintainable as a strategy. It is also a truism that ‘people become wiser after the event’. But statesmen are known for taking sagacious and judicious steps which are in the interest of the country, and they are regarded as correct by historians.
India is moving on from Non-alignment to multi-alignment (the topic of this column published on 8 December). In the current scenario, in which India is leaning towards the US and the West for its growth and security, the engagement with this bloc seems to be proceeding in fits and starts. Is this right approach now or in the long-term interest of India? Are both the countries on the same page on many global and bilateral issues?
To take a few illustrations in order to examine the above assumption, let us look at the war in Ukraine. India abstained on several resolutions moved in the United Nations on naming Russia as an aggressor, which implied New Delhi’s stance has been pro-Russian. New Delhi has a tradition of expressing solidarity with countries suffering from intervention, neo-colonial exploitation and undue interference and intervention. In the past, when Hungary was invaded in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Afghanistan (a non-aligned country) in 1979, all by the Soviet Union, India kept quiet. Similar is the position on Ukraine although it raised some informal protests with Putin, the Russian President.
Is that good for India’s reputation of embracing a value-based approach in international politics, particularly in comparison to China, which is out to grab other countries territory and is posing a systemic threat to world politics? Apparently, India did it in pursuance of its national interest which consisted of keeping up its traditional ties with the Soviet Union. Quite a bit of research has been done calculating the costs and benefits of India’s military trade with Soviet Union and now Russia. On the other hand, it has irked the United States with whom our partnership is growing. Prime Minister Narendra Modi went a step further in seconding the candidature of Donald Trump, who was a good friend of India inasmuch as he took on China.
On Ukrainian war, India would excel as a neutral party if the Prime Minister could broker a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia in consultation with the United States and Europe. Even if the peace deal was not a complete agreement, New Delhi could have contributed to a ceasefire and initiation of negotiations. The Mexican President had called for such an initiative from the Indian PM, albeit under the UN platform.
The Ministry of External Affairs and the PMO continued to hark on dialogue and diplomacy. It would have been better if these two tools were put into some action. Indian Foreign Policy establishment prided on their ability to negotiate both with US as well as Russia especially buying oil from the latter at cheaper rate from Russia. The oil import certainly did help in containing inflation of energy prices. But did it help even partially to ending of the war in Ukraine?
On the war in Gaza, India did display a pragmatic as well as normative approach by expressing solidarity with Israel as it faced a terrorist attack from Hamas. Since then, India had abstained in United Nations from voting for any resolution that did not name Hamas’ action on 7 October as a terrorist attack. In the latest resolution, India has taken a balanced position of calling for a ceasefire as well as calling out Hamas for terror attack and keeping Israeli hostages.
Again, does it help the Palestinians or Israelis? Palestinians are dying in bombardment by Israelis who will not stop until they “eliminate the military capacity of Hamas in repeating such attacks as of 7 October”. Any country, talking of India, could do well to ask Hamas to release the rest of the hostages and surrender, and Israel to withdraw its forces so that innocent civilians are not sacrificed. There seems no other way to stop the current bloodshed. Going back in history of action-reaction or aggressor-victim – aggressor syndrome will not stop the ongoing war.
There is more than one interpretation of Joe Biden not attending the Republic Day parade. It may be so that the back-to-back arrangement for Quad Summit and Republic Day celebration are not compatible with the Congressional schedule of the American President. The refusal of the invitation from Modi by Joe Biden could also be attributed to the irritation arising out of the “assumed Indian agency hand” in the attempted assassination of the controversial Sikh, an American citizen, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun. The issue has assumed greater seriousness after the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian citizen, allegedly by Indian agencies.
Be that as it may, there is a case for India’s greater engagement with the United States that takes a rounded approach, not just sectoral like the increased collaboration in defence. Bilateral relationship is based on shared understanding, deepening trust and often being on the same side on important international issues. Such an approach militates against India’s multi-alignment policy which is of course desirable in a gloablised world. Is it not necessary to differentiate between issue-based alignment and strategic partnershi (INFA)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
