Choice before India

It is not said for nothing that history repeats itself. History provides lessons to astute learners, and who do not learn from history suffer. Such a repetition has emerged before India now. And India must decide, and its decision will define its future and role in international politics. 

After the end of the Second World War, the United States and the Soviet Union emerged superpowers. The United States with its democratic capitalism and the Soviet Union with its socialist economy emerged two major attractions, attracting countries from all over the globe. India with some other countries decided not to ally with either of the blocs. This decision was called ‘immoral’ as despite claiming to be neutral India tilted towards the Soviet Union. This tilt was reflected in its domestic and foreign policies. India emphasized on five-year planning and relied heavily on state apparatus for economic growth. As a result, its economy remained underdeveloped. There was not a large gap between the economies of India and China at the time of India’s independence or in the 1950s or 60s. But China grew faster as it adopted capitalist market economy in the late 1970s. Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, and the socialist experiment failed. Russia adopted capitalist market economy. China gave up socialist economy and adopted a capitalist market economy in the 1970s and emerged a global exporter of goods. 

Socialism as a philosophy and policy vision has a great value as the idea of welfare state owes much to this philosophy and vision. While the western societies benefited much from the ideas of Marx and Engels, the experience of developing societies in adopting socialism was not inspiring. While Indian socialists root for Lenin and Mao, Russia and China have abandoned the socialist path.

Moving fast forward, China is the rising global power, far surpassing Russia, the successor state of the Soviet Union. The time has changed, and China is no more a socialist country. Its authoritarian system displays a vestige of socialism, and social equality, but that is not the reality as it suppresses dissent and democratic voices. China has ruthlessly pursued a Machiavellian policy in which power is realized at any cost. Its policies in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South China Sea, and the Himalayas reflect such a policy. But the fact remains that it is the second largest economy in the world and one of the most powerful players in world politics. India must contend with this reality and devise its policies accordingly. 

Slogans and quotes like ‘Hindi-Chini bhai bhai’ and ‘India Conquered and dominated China culturally…’ now sound dreary. Despite civilizational connections, both the countries have pursued different paths. China does not hesitate to defend Masood Azhar, the terrorist from Pakistan. It does not hesitate to call the reintegration camps for Uighurs as educational campuses. Such policies serve China’s interests, in which geopolitics and geoeconomics eschew moral and humanitarian concerns. China apparently takes a leaf from Sun Tzu book despite proclaiming Confucian ‘peaceful rise’. India must follow Kautilya.

India must decide which course to follow. Though there is not a clearly laid out path, and each situation poses unique opportunities and challenges, India’s policymaking establishment must adhere to fundamental Indian values. India is the largest democracy and China is not despite it having a larger population. China follows an aggressive foreign policy, a policy more guided by stick than carrot. Indian policymakers must keep this in mind while developing policies and looking for allies. And in this it can find an ally in the US.

President-elect Joseph Biden called for strengthening partnership with democratic countries including India in a recent article in Foreign Affairs. Obama’s Asia-pivot and Indo-Pacific policies were pursued by the Trump administration. Though both administrations differ on many accounts, they realized the significance of India in building a democratic and peaceful world. Both adopted democratic model of governance in which the voice of the people remains supreme, not the diktats of one individual or one party. 

China’s policy is more like my way or highway as it shuns ideas of accommodation. India is now not a part of Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership or Belt and Road Initiative. On the Himalayas it follows a coercive policy. Pakistan’s nuclear program could not be effective without the support of China. Parts of Kashmir are under the Chinese control. China-Pakistan nexus has worked against India’s interest. But India must contend with this reality, engage with it, and work for best possible solutions. While guarding its independent foreign policy, it must cultivate relations or rather renew relations to guard its values and engineer economic growth. 

India’s aspiration to be a global power will remain unrealized if there is instability at home as it will hamper efforts to realize foreign policy goals. Indian philosopher Sri Aurobindo wrote, India has yet not “spoken her last creative word; she lives and has still something to do for herself and the human peoples”, implying India’s contribution to the world in science, mathematics, spiritual wealth, and in other areas of human creativity, has not ended. Keeping in view such a vision, Indian leaders must pursue a path that puts India at the center of everything and choose allies and enemies accordingly.