Enough with the diffidence

These episodes merely highlight the broader strategic culture that pervades Indian foreign policy.

Despite the chest-thumping in recent years about India emerging as a major global power, its strategic and political elites display an insecurity that defies explanation. A powerful, self-confident nation should be able to articulate a coherent vision about its priorities and national interests. Various domestic constituencies have accused the government of betraying its “time-tested friends”, such as Iran and Russia, as if the only purpose of foreign policy is to make friends. The government failed to strongly defend itself, generating confusion about its policy priorities. Foreign policy cannot be geared towards keeping every other country in good humour.

Such insecurity makes India overboard with its concerns about Obama and reluctant to appreciate fully what George W. Bush has accomplished for Indo-US ties. It is perfectly reasonable for India to emphasise that while it doesn’t support many of Bush’s foreign policy ventures, it recognises the critical role he has played in transforming bilateral ties. Bush’s u-turn on Kashmir and non-proliferation might make him one of the most significant US presidents for India. Whether it was preventing the non-proliferation lobby from wrecking the deal or using his clout to bring recalcitrant NSG nations around, he spent political capital building a new partnership. 

India’s concerns about some US foreign policy priorities and its acceptance of the Bush administration’s critical role in transforming ties are not mutually exclusive.

After all, India did not agree with many of Bill Clinton’s foreign policy priorities either. And yet when the Indian PM thanked Bush during his last visit to the US, critics in India went berserk. In a similar vein, notwithstanding Obama’s problematic stands on several issues impinging directly on Indian interests, there is no need for India to be hyperbolic in its concerns. If Obama does decide to go back on some of the initiatives of the Bush administration vis-à-vis India, then it would be as much a problem for broader US foreign policy as it would be for India. He won’t be doing India any favours by engaging India more substantively either. India is a rising power. The US and the world need it as much as India needs them. The visible lack of self-confidence among Indian elites in their nation’s ability to leverage the international system to its advantage will only weaken India. India should assess its interests carefully and learn to stand up for them.  

India’s strategic diffidence is in full display in the case of China, where India has consistently refused to tackle the challenge that China poses to Indian interests. China has upped the ante on the border issue, and its rhetoric on Arunachal Pradesh is getting stronger. More alarmingly, intrusions into Indian territory are getting more brazen. In a recent incident, Chinese soldiers entered 15 kilometres into India at the Burste post in the Ladakh sector along the Sino-Indian boundary and burned the Indian patrolling base. The number of incursions by the Chinese has increased to 213 from 170 reported last year. As usual, India is left to reacting to these actions — actions that do not conform to India’s self-image of an aspiring global power either. 

India’s China policy and its larger foreign policy continue to be premised on the liberal fallacy that strategic problems will inevitably produce satisfactory solutions merely because they are desirable and in the interest of all. As a result, the real issues are sidelined while the peripheral issues attain centrestage. India is too big, too proud and too significant a global player to worry about Obama’s phone call. Its sights should be on the real challenges to its interests and it should work towards preserving and enhancing them, without any apologies or explanations. 

The writer teaches at King’s College, London

expressexpressindia.com