America finds India an unreliable ally, to its surprise.
George W Bush will be remembered for his many misadventures in Foreign Policy, but he claimed a legacy in this one important aspect - attempting to usher in a new American engagement in Asia through a deepening friendship with India. This hope was perhaps reciprocated at the time: India's outgoing Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, cites India's Nuclear Power cooperation with America as the biggest achievement of his ten years in power. At the time, the American engagement with India was hailed with an expectation to be as momentous as Nixon's engagement with China.
However, this shift was contentious in America as in India. For Americans, it was some sort of a balancing act after decades of Pro-Pakistan stance after the inevitable seeding of democracy and street politics in that country. It is rather ironic that it was democracy that was cited as the reason for favouring India ever so suddenly: For Indians were bewildered why Americans discovered Indian democracy so late in the day.
For Indians, though the friendship with America is the most convenient thing to do in the post-Cold War era, America was not to be trusted. Indians knew America for its committed support to Pakistani foreign policy, particularly during particular events such as the Bangladesh Liberation War, which has shaped the psyche and society in India in a certain way. The late love of the Bush administration was immediately seen as what it was - an invitation to India to become America's foot soldier against China - and therefore, appeared quite unappetising.
Obama's Asia pivot - though it was not so much of a pivot after the Administration got so bogged down with the Arab Spring and everything else - came in this setting. Obama Administration's disengagement from the world affairs, or at least evident reversal of Bush Administration's activism, allowed some perspectives to emerge. And, the perspective is perhaps that how difficult it is for America to maintain the Cold War era client state structure into the emerging new reality of regional fragmentation of global politics: Obama's confusion may be due to the fact that the era of grand narratives in Foreign Policy, even one engaged into by the Bush administration, is well and truly over.
Which means that the presupposition of America as a benign and benevolent global empire, a global policeman for democracy and free markets, needs to be rethought in the context of emerging regional realities. And, instead of thinking in terms of grand rivalries between America and China caught in the inevitable Thucydides Trap, the ground reality may suggest a preeminence of economic and cultural cooperation and imperatives over and above the nation-state priorities, creating cross-cutting configurations that the strategists in the Oval Office or Pentagon may not necessarily visualise.
It is these sorts of forces and priorities that are going to shape India's foreign policy. India has been ruled by a narrow elite, mostly from its Northwestern regions, for years since Independence. This elite, which was formed through a coalition of several interests, was pandered by American policy-makers in the recent years. However, India's internal politics is increasingly challenging the hold of this elite in 'national matters', creating the necessity and fuelling the rise of various regional interests and parties.
This reconfiguration of India's politics is likely to have impact on India's foreign policy as well. The elite that ruled India craved for global recognition. The alignment with 'non-aligned' nations, and eventual 'friendship' with USSR was forged on the basis of this quest for a global role. However, this came at a cost of disengagement with India's immediate neighbourhood: India did not become a global power, but it did manage to become a local bully, fixated with its 'big power' pretensions and oblivious of its local and cultural ties. Not only its foreign policy was defined by its animosity with Pakistan, but it managed to alienate even Bangladesh, the country it helped create, Nepal, its Hindu neighbour, and Sri Lanka, with age-old cultural bonds. However, the reconfiguration of India's politics, which was in the making for almost two decades now, and comes to a head in its election in 2014 more forcefully than ever, may lead a new realism in its foreign policy, a deeper regional engagement and a more realistic global aspiration. This may, in short, lead to India's own pivot to the East.
I shall argue that this realignment of India's foreign policy is inevitable, and beneficial for its people. The sort of inclusive economic prosperity that is needed to keep India a viable state will demand this new kind of politics, and this new kind of politics will eventually recognise the preeminent necessity of regional peace and cooperation. So, engagement with the democratic Pakistani administration, neutrality and commitment to Bangladesh's and Nepal's economic prosperity and democratic processes, re-engagement with Sri Lanka and help it overcome its authoritarian trajectory, etc., will become matters of greater importance of India's foreign policy than winning a permanent seat at the United Nations: Forging a wide-ranging free trade area with ASEAN and China would eventually become the objective of Indian world view.
America, which eventually carried on the British imperial design of dominance through conflict in Asia, also needs to readjust its priorities, at least by acknowledging the limitations of American power. Such limitation is not one of Military power: America will remain World's foremost military power for several decades to come. However, the limit of military power is that it only guarantees American dominance over dead people, which may amount to nothing. If the American world-view is shaped by its need to guarantee continuing prosperity of its people in the face of climatic constraints and localisation of global terror, it must adjust to this new regional globality, adjusting to a benign role not just in words but in deeds. India may find itself to be a natural ally to such an America: But otherwise, it will remain only a friend of convenience of the United States, as United States will remain one of India.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Nations are ideas. We try to fashion them as territories. But how can a river, a mountain ridge or sometimes an imaginary line in the middle of a field can explain the wide division in the lives, thoughts and futures of the people who live on different sides? Nations are not the people too. Indeed, people build nations and become its body. But the soul of the nation is an idea: People come together on an idea to build a nation. While that's what a modern nation is - an idea - and that way exceptionalism is not an American exception, very few nations are as completely defined by an idea as Pakistan. There was hardly any political, geographic or military rationale of Pakistan other than the idea of an Islamic homeland in South Asia. [In that way, the ideological brother of Pakistan in the family of nations is Israel] This, abated by the short term political calculations of some backroom colonialists, created a modern state which must be solely sustained on that singular idea. Religi
This post is a reaction to Aatish Taseer's evocative obituary of secular India in the Atlantic ( read here ). While I agree with it mostly - and share the reservations about the direction and the future of India - I differ with the author on one key aspect: I do not agree with his portrayal of a resurgent Bharat eating up a secular India. In fact, I believe while Mr Taseer regrets the Indian elite's loss of connection with the realities of day to day life of the country, his very presentation of Bharat and India as oppositional entities stems from that incomprehension. While I understand that he is only using these categories as RSS uses them - to effectively other the English-speaking elites and non-Hindus - I believe it is a mistake to describe the profound changes in contemporary India as the ascendance of Bharat. I grew up in Bharat. I never learnt English until late in life, when I started working. My growing-up world was one of small-town India, vernacu
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen was gui
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was, as
A lot of conversations about Kolkata is about its past; I want to talk about its future. Most conversations about Kolkata is about its decline - its golden moments and how times changed; I want to talk about its rise, how its best may lie ahead and how we can change the times. In place of pessimism, I seek optimism; instead of inertia, I am looking for imagination. It is not about catching up, I am arguing; it is about making a new path altogether. It had, indeed it had, a glorious past: One of the first Asian cities to reach a million population, the Capital of British India, the cradle of an Enlightened Age and a new politics of Cosmopolitanism. And, it had stumbled - losing the hinterland that supplied its Jute factories, overwhelmed by the refugees that came after the partition, devoid of its professional class who chose to emigrate - the City's commercial and professional culture evaporated in a generation, and it transformed into a corrupt and inefficien
Introduction: Hastings in the history of Indian Education Whether or not one includes Warren Hastings in the history of Education in India is a matter of perspective. If writing the history of education means writing the history of schools, the impact of Hastings' administration would be quite limited. If anything, the rapid implosion of local rulers in Eastern, Southern and Northern India during Hastings' tenure had meant a bleak period for the indigenous education system, as patronage and funds would have dwindled away for many of them. The Company administration really concerned itself with the schooling of the natives only after 1813, as Nurullah and Naik rightly pointed out ( see my earlier post ) and one can legitimately start the story at this point. However, if history of Education in India is to encompass the transformation of Indian Scholarship, on which foundation the new, colonial, system of Education would be built, the story must start with Warren Hast
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
The story of British influence on Indian Education, to which Macaulay's Minutes of 1835 belong, has been told in six distinct phases. Syed Nurullah and J P Naik's very popular and influential History of Indian Education calls these 'six acts' of the drama: From the beginning of Eighteenth Century to 1813 The British East India Company received its charter in 1600 but its activities did not include any Educational engagement till the Charter Act of 1698, which required the Company to maintain priests and schools, for its own staff and their children. And, so it was until the renewal of its charter in 1813, when the evangelical influence led to insistence of expansion of educational activities and allowing priests back into company territory. From 1813 to Wood's Education Despatch of 1854 The renewal of Charter in 1813 re-opened the debate, which seemed to have been settled in the early years of the company administration, between the Orientalis
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.