Unmindful of realities, Indian foreign policy is not benefitting the common people
Pravin Sawhney
Commonsense suggests that India with 1.4 billion (140 crore) people, 80 crore of which are extremely poor (hence Prime Minister Modi’s announcement to provide them with free rations), and with having missed all industrial revolutions (first, second, third, and now the fourth) which are predicated on new technologies should have a foreign policy which benefits majority of Indians.
Given this, there is good and bad news for India’s poor and aspirational middle class. The good news is that global geopolitics has shifted from Trans-Atlantic to Asia Pacific region where India is located for two reasons: the unstoppable rise of China and the presence of the fastest growing economies in the Asian Pacific region. While it is universally acknowledged that education and discipline have contributed to China becoming the world’s unbeatable manufacturing nation with presence in major global supply chains, what is not being accepted by the US and western nations is that China is their global competitor in disruptive technologies and leads them in new green technologies like electric vehicles, fast rails, solar panels (which convert solar radiation into heat), wind panels (to convert wing into electricity), nuclear energy, lithium batteries and so on. To be sure, these technologies which are ushering in the fourth industrial revolution are at the heart of global geopolitics between the top two competing nations: America and China.
In such an unfolding global landscape, while there are many knowns, there are equal unknowns too. For example, America and China’s global visions are known. Even as the world ended being unipolar with America as the sole great power in 2018, the US refuses to accept the reality that it is no longer a global hegemon. Moreover, when Trump administration identified China as its global competitor, it ended globalisation which it had championed since the end of the Cold War. Hence, today, the US vision is to dominate Asia, undermine China’s rise by its ‘small yard high fence’ technology strategy, and contain China by its impressive military power.
America’s problem is that it has never contended with an adversary with civilizational wisdom and approach which is alien to it. China’s vision is based on its China Dream concept, which (a) seeks betterment of its large population by economic upliftment and (b) hopes to help developing and less developed nations of Global South with connectivity and industrialization. Beijing’s strategy to accomplish the second goal of China Dream is through the Belt and Road Initiative, Global Development Initiative, and Global Civilizational Initiative. To ward off foreign adversarial pressures, China is building credible deterrence (to prevent wars and to fight to win if deterrence fails) and has offered the concept of relative security to Global South nations through its Global Security Initiative. To China’s advantage, another great power, Russia, too has a vision which aligns with its own. Aware that whatever be the outcome of the Ukraine war, Russia’s relations with key European nations will remain hostile for long, Moscow has shifted its strategic gaze towards Asia Pacific region.
In such global setting, India’s external affairs minister, S. Jaishankar recently spoke his mind on how he visualises the changing global order and India’s foreign policy. His main arguments being that (a) world is multipolar with enormous challenges since there are three types of multipolarity: military, economic and technological, (b) multipolarity has led to regionalisation of power distribution where no alliance has capability to impose its will, which in turn has led to the rise of middle powers, (c) rising nationalism in many nations is shaping the world. Given this, ‘India has joined 40 grouping in 10 years (Quad and Indo Pacific)’ and hence follows a foreign policy of strategic autonomy: choosing friends based on India’s interests, and (d) nature of power has changed to technology power.
A closer examination shows that Jaishankar, who now calls India as Bharat to align with Modi government’s Hindutva ideology, has made case for close relations with America and G7 nations. Let’s examine Jaishankar’s four observations on global order. While it is true that today the world is multipolar, what this means is not explained, and hence comprises the unknowns today. With many power centres (or poles), while the world is today not stable with many challenges, it cannot remain so in perpetuity. Contours of what lies on the horizon are already discernible. On the one side is the US building alliances or blocks (which are predicated on balance of power), on the other side are China and Russia which are creating new institutions like BRICS open for all nations who desire development and prosperity. Given this, in a decade the world will likely have a set of nations (Global North) led by America who believe in military dominance and de-globalization passed off as nationalism. This grouping will remain unstable, proof of which is already available. For example, Italy, a G7 nation, which pulled out of Belt and Road Initiative under American pressure, has signed the three years economic cooperation agenda (BRI though backdoor) with China. Italy is also part of NATO which is going global to contain China in Asia Pacific region.
The other set of nations (Global South) based on globalisation will likely become stable, which is a critical condition for development and growth of any nation. These nations, which constitute 80 per cent of world population will accept Chinese cost-effective green industries and disruptive technologies for upliftment of their people. When a new technology gets accepted by most nations, it becomes the benchmark for global standards.
So, the question is, why is Modi’s India, which aspires to become a developed nation by 2047, on the wrong side of global geopolitics. Perhaps, Jaishankar knows best.