India and its global ambitions

Yes, no, maybe…

The weeks that followed the fall of Mr Dominique Strauss-Kahn as the chief of International Monetary Fund and the subsequent world tour by Ms Christine Lagarde to drum up support for her election to the office, India joined the chorus of developing countries to have adequate representation. The bloc of developing countries (India, China, Brazil, Mexico, etc) was challenging the tradition where IMF was always headed by a European. Briefly Mr Agustin Carstens, governor of Mexico’s Central Bank tried to rally support from developing countries including India. However, none of the developing countries managed to arrive at a consensus and Ms Lagarde, was eventually elected to the office. In the mean while China decided to support Ms Lagarde’s candidature in return of a larger responsibility for China in the IMF.

India is often viewed as unprepared when it comes to multilateral decisions which have global implication. We have seen this in case of the EU-India free trade agreement, WTO’s Doha round and more recently the climate change summit. Long winded processes which seem to take for ever, due to lack of preparedness or vested interests or some time misplaced sovereign pride. India which has done remarkably well on bilateral fronts is severely lacking on multilateral fronts. That being the case, India’s global ambitions are only growing. For the past two decades India has been pressing for a reformed United Nations Security Council (UNSC) with a permanent seat for itself. India along with Brazil, Germany and Japan formed an interest group known as G4 to push for the reform and subsequent expansion of the UNSC. All countries on the permanent council support India’s candidature; however any reform in the near future is a remote possibility.

Running the extra lap

It is a well acknowledge fact that India has arrived on the global scene in the past two decades. It has acquired an enviable position of upholding democratic values and churning out a fast growing large economy from a country which was on brink of sovereign default. Most of the recent global initiatives of India have been largely trade and commerce centred. The world is yet to see India take an assertive and sustainable step in global diplomacy, some thing that the established and emerging world powers have already shown. India has traditionally shied away from any matters which can potentially (some times falsely assumed) upset its diplomatic equilibrium.

In the past India has given the excuse of having its hands full with housekeeping activities and establishing order with in the country. In the past two decades much has changed, both within India and outside. Indian diaspora is now much more active around the world, Indian trade and commerce has spread to once far off countries and Indian views are listened to around the world. India’s inclusion in the G-20 has further raised its profile. India’s contribution towards handling of the recent financial crisis has proved its abilities as a mature economic power to the world. Both the developed and the developing world see India in a different light now. It’s no longer an aid seeking and famine struck country of the 60s.  

The tiger sleeps on

With so many changes, India has surprisingly lagged in international diplomacy. It has always taken a reluctant and meek stand on matters of international importance. The latest being the abstention from the UNSC resolution 1973 approving a no-fly zone over Libya. India’s excuse was that armed intervention should be the last resort after the efforts of UN appointed envoy fail, which was not yet implemented. In a situation where a despot is hell bent on killing his own countrymen an armed intervention is more of a humanitarian effort than military one. People opposed to UNSC resolution can argue that past military interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan) have proved anything but useful. For every person sighting Iraq or Afghanistan there is Rwanda and Srebrenica where armed interventions have brought an end to genocides. No-fly zone over Libya was the best possible action at a time when Mr Qaddafi was killing his own country men. India missed the boat.

On other sensitive issues like nuclear proliferation too India has no consistent stand. India’s concern on nuclear proliferation ends at Indo-Pak border. To some extent India’s reluctance stemmed from sanctions imposed by the west after its operation “Smiling Buddha” in 1974. But in the aftermath of international recognition of India as an official nuclear power (in shape of Indo-US nuclear deal) it should now take a firm stand on the issue. It should have a clear policy on Iran and North Korea. So far nothing has come forth.

One thing that India has failed to leverage to its benefit is its unparalleled achievement in nurturing and maintaining democratic standards. India should play its democratic card at international forum to establish itself as a mature country, which believes in fair play and respects public involvement. This will help it balance against its biggest rival, China. While the Tibetan government in exile has its seat in New Delhi, India does not use it like China uses stapled visas for people living in Indian states of Jammu & Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh.

Its time India metamorphose itself into a country which has more than just cheap labour, growing auto market and consumers hungry for foreign products. Time has come that it takes on the world stage with confidence. It should stop bothering itself with myopic electoral gains while shaping its foreign policy. India has already lost time in catching up on the lost opportunities. The present reactive policy of India should shift to proactive and a widely thought through policy, which can support India’s claim to international institutions like UNSC, IMF or possibly G6 (G5 + 1). 

India and its near neighbours

Six Decades and counting

After sixty four years and five wars, India is yet to sort a single dispute with its neighbours. On the contrary it has got itself into uncomfortable situation in the past. Be it the peacekeeping forces in Sri Lanka or constant meddling in the internal affairs of Nepal. Relationships with the neighbours are anything but cordial.

In 1971, India championed the cause of Bangladesh and helped carve a new country in South Asia. The first government of Bangladesh lead by Sheikh Mujibur Rehman looked all set to enter into a long lasting friendship with Mrs Gandhi. The dream met a premature end with the coup in 1975, which wiped out most of Bangladesh’s first family. India hardly took a second look at Bangladesh after that. With India getting more and more obsessed with its western neighbour Pakistan in the past few decades, there was hardly any attention paid to rest of neighbourhood.

India’s issues with Pakistan are deep rooted and extremely sensitive with its political class. It can be safely assumed that all the issues with Pakistan (including Kashmir) can not be resolved overnight or even in the medium term. However, this should not distract the attention of Ministry of External Affairs from its near neighbours. Pakistan is and will be an ongoing affair for a long time to come. India should spare some energy and resources to mend its ties with countries which can prove to be long term partners in regional cooperation.

What can we do?

Handing out aid is not a guarantee to good relations. Had it been the case, America should have been the world’s best friend. Secondly India can not afford to offer aid on a large scale, given the fact that there is a pressing need for social development with in the country. Under such circumstances the best way forward is to engage in increased business activity. And for once, these business activities should move beyond exchanging a few truck loads of onion and sugar, which only helps a handful of people that too for an extremely short period of time.

The long term strategy for India should be to establish business relations with countries like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal on a larger scale. Bangladesh after a long time has a friendly government in power. Civil war in Sri Lanka has come to an end and Nepal will sooner or later have a full time prime minister. Given these favourable situations India should push for large scale contribution to these countries in form of setting up manufacturing facilities and some kind of secondary outsourcing (which some big Indian companies already are doing with South East Asian countries).

India should look for incentives for its private sector companies from sectors like two wheelers, pharmaceuticals, FMCG, BPOs, etc to set shop in countries like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal. This will prove to be a win all situation for the countries. The local population will benefit from employment generated at the manufacturing unit, the economy will benefit from the money pumped in, the parent company will benefit from incentives and possible relaxation in export rules to foreign markets (Bangladesh gets substantial tariff exemption for its textile export to Europe).

Economic and trade connection will inevitably bring in more people to people contact, which in turn will help reduce the trust deficit. All three countries mentioned share very close cultural, linguistic and religious bonds with India. A little push on the economic front can change the way South Asians see each other. But before India does any of this, it should raise the profile of the ministry of external affairs.