The country’s gaze is turned so firmly inward just now that not one political party has thought it necessary to pay more than passing attention to foreign policy issues in its election manifesto.
It is easy to understand the preoccupation of the parties with domestic problems at a time when the country is in the throes of a major social, economic and political upheaval. It will like nothing better than to be left alone in this difficult period.
But this is a vain hope. The world will not leave India free to sort out its problems of modernisation and social unrest in isolation and peace. Developments abroad will continue to impinge on its policies at home. It can indeed find itself in needless difficulties unless it is sufficiently sensitive to the international environment in which it lives.
It will be futile for it to try to play a big role in world affairs as it was able to do in the entirely different circumstances of the ‘fifties. In fact there is much to be said for its adopting a low profile. But it does not follow that it can afford to ignore either the changes that are taking place in the world scene or the need to adjust itself to them.
One Result
One result of the general lack of interest in the outside world on the part of the political parties is that they think that they are still living in the world of the early ‘sixties if not the late ‘fifties. Those who specialise in foreign affairs may know of the big changes that have transformed the contours of the international scene. But in the very nature of things they can make only a marginal difference to the popular appreciation of the international realities. The political leaders alone can change the public outlook.
When Mr Nehru defined the broad national consensus on foreign policy problems in the early ‘fifties, it was largely a bipolar world; anti-colonialism was still a major issue because many African countries had yet to win their independence; the United States was laying claim to world hegemony in the name of fighting a monolithic communism; it was taking over the role of West European and Japanese empires; and the Soviet Union did not have the physical power to dominate newly independent countries of Asia and Africa even if it so desired.
All this has changed beyond recognition. The world has ceased to be bipolar though China may not for decades belong to the same league as the United States and the Soviet Union; colonialism survives only in a few territories like Angola and Mozambique; America has gone through a traumatic experience in Viet Nam, so much so that it has almost given up the idea of playing the role of world gendarme; the neo-isolationist sentiment has spread in the country; Western Europe and Japan are dissatisfied with their present international status and are trying to have a greater say in world affairs; the Soviet power is firmly established in the Mediterranean and in West Asia and it is only a matter of time before it makes itself felt in the Indian Ocean.
Since it needs a powerful political personality to bring home the new international realities to the public and to bring about a fresh national consensus, it is a pity that Mrs Gandhi has shirked this responsibility. The manifesto of the new Congress makes only a passing reference to foreign policy issues and unfortunately even this is couched in a language which is more appropriate to the ‘fifties than to the seventies.
It is, for example, plainly irrelevant for the ruling party to emphasise India’s role as a peacemaker. Even the concept of non-alignment needs to be given a new content if it is to be a meaningful guide to policy in the ‘seventies.
In view of the country’s dependence on Moscow for arms and its continuing misunderstanding with China, the new Congress may think it discreet not to proclaim openly either its opposition to Soviet ambitions in the Indian Ocean area or its neutrality in the Russo-Chinese competition. But it has to find some way of indicating its desire to stay out of the Sino-Soviet conflict.
It speaks of the realism of the new Congress that unlike some of the major opposition parties, it has not indulged in the vain talk of liberating “every inch of Indian territory” from Chinese occupation and that it has reaffirmed its desire to normalise relations with Peking on the basis of mutual respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.
Not Enough
But this is not enough. The suggestion is not that the new Congress should have committed the next Government to any specific territorial concession to China. That would have been a great folly. No party to a dispute reveals its hand before the negotiations are well advanced. But the new Congress could have owned up to the fact that Peking was bound to play an important role in Asia. Mr Nehru did so when he sought to prepare the ground for friendly relations with China.
The SSP has been specially irresponsible in its references to China in its manifesto. It is highly unfortunate that it should have said that “even today thousands of square miles of India, if Tibet be taken into consideration lakhs of square miles, are in illegal occupation of China” or that “the primary aim of foreign policy should be that either Tibet becomes independent or Kailash-Mansarovar, and the east-flowing Brahmaputra becomes the boundary line between India and China.”
It is also a matter of some concern that neither the new Congress nor any opposition party has taken cognisance of the growing economic and military power of Japan which has already outstripped West Germany in terms of gross national product. Similarly, their election manifestoes betray a total lack of interest in the European Economic Community when even America and Russia find it necessary to cultivate good relations with it.
India may suffer a good deal when Britain joins the Common Market and abolishes preferential tariff for Commonwealth products. But it may be able to make good this loss if Britain is able to encourage the EEC to be less inward looking. This means that it should strengthen its links with Britain. Yet at least three opposition parties – the Jana Sangh, the SSP and the PSP – have repeated parrot-like their demand for this country’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth.
Mr Nehru recognised the importance of links with Britain and of the membership of the Commonwealth in his search for a counterweight, however small, against the two super-powers. Ironically enough, the Chinese have recognised the validity of his formulation. Their compulsion is also the same as Mr Nehru’s – the need to cultivate the middle powers to reduce the country’s dependence on the two super-powers.
Self-Sufficiency
It is, however, comforting to know that among the country’s major parties only the Jana Sangh has said in its manifesto that India must “develop nuclear armoury to deter any fresh invasion of the country”, work for “complete self-sufficiency in the production of all arms” and develop the Indian Navy to make it the biggest in the Indian Ocean.
It is a tribute to the good sense of the electorate here that most parties believe that this kind of chauvinism will not pay dividends at the polls. But xenophobia and chauvinism may acquire more appeal in the eyes of the people if the country’s leaders fail to take advantage of the international situation to defend and promote legitimate national interests. The growth of isolationist sentiment and the demand for nuclear weapons are likely to go together in the case of India. It is significant that the party which favours India going nuclear is also the loudest in its opposition to all foreign aid.
In the ‘fifties, Mr Nehru was able to win for India a degree of influence wholly out of proportion to its economic and military power mainly because he had an intuitive understanding of the international environment. His grasp became less sure towards the end of the decade when he failed to appreciate the magnitude of the Sino-Soviet split and draw the necessary conclusions from it for India. That was why he was taken completely by surprise by the Chinese attack in October 1962. Since then the international scene has become even more complicated.
It may be unfair to expect political parties and leaders to deal adequately with complicated foreign policy issues in their election manifestoes. But there is little to show that their private appreciation of the international realities is any more sophisticated than their public posture. In fact all the evidence points to the fact that, true to its tradition, the country is once again turning its face away from the outside world to its own detriment.
The Times of India, 28 January 1971