The world changed last Tuesday

India cannot go by old shibboleths, frozen pieties in the new world

PRAKASH NANDA

LEFT parties, a section of the Congress party, and former Prime Minister V.P. Singh have questioned the Vajpayee government’s move to allow the use of the country’s military facilities to the US in its fight against terrorism. Apart from questioning the military solution of the problem, it has been argued that the use of Indian territory by a foreign power against any third country will violate India’s ‘‘non-aligned’’ foreign policy. They look to the United Nations for a solution to the current crisis.

This reasoning is specious and misleading. For one, the fact that none of the members of the Security Council has opposed, or is likely to oppose, the proposed American military action, renders any distinction between the UN and US in this case of academic interest. Even when the UN had legalised the US-led alliance against Iraq in 1990, these political elements lambasted the then government’s decision to provide refuelling facilities to US planes.

For another, the non-aligned movement (NAM), whose sanctity is being invoked, has unequivocally affirmed that criminal acts calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public are unjustifiable. The 12th NAM Summit at Durban in 1998 clearly spelt out that all 113 member states have an obligation to refrain from organising, assisting or participating in terrorist acts on the territories of other states. The summit also called for the early adoption and implementation of a comprehensive convention against international terrorism as per a UN General Assembly resolution in the drafting of which India played a leading role, asking member-states ‘‘to cooperate with and provide assistance to other states and relevant international and regional organisations’’ in eliminating terrorism.

Non-alignment must not be confused with neutrality. Addressing the UN Correspondents’ Association, New York, in October 1960, Nehru said, ‘‘I do not like the word neutral in regard to India’s policy. It is not a question of balancing ourselves between groups or blocks of nations which have arisen. That kind of sitting on the fence or balancing has not occurred to us at all. We are adopting a positive policy which we think is right.’’

Again, replying to a debate on foreign affairs in Parliament on December 7 1950, Nehru said: ‘‘The world marches rapidly and changes, new situations develop and we have to deal with each situation as it comes. For a person to think in terms of blocs means today that he is yesterday’s man and that he is not keeping pace with the changes in the world. We have to deal with matters as they come up. Especially in matters of foreign policy, one has to decide almost every hour what has to be done. It is in the spirit of realism that I want you to approach the question of our foreign policy.’’
Realism and national interests are synonymous. That is why India has taken different stands on many international issues in the past. India condemned the Anglo-French invasion of the Suez and American policy in Vietnam but remained silent on the Soviet crackdowns in Eastern Europe. Despite the policy of disavowal of military force, Nehru ordered the Indian army to march into Goa for its liberation from Portugal.

If there should be any debate in the country today, it should be on whether an alliance with the US serves our national interests. Will America see our point — that we are one of the worst victims of terrorism — and take concrete steps to crush its roots in Pakistan?

The writer is a Fellow at the Indian Council of Historical Research