The idea of the start of an Asian Century believed to be started after the continuous rise of China on the world map and the relative decline of the west after the 2008 Global Financial Crisis that had changed the paradigm of global politics. This idea also bolstered the aspirations of India, as it rekindled the hopes for envisioning the power that India wielded during the medieval era, which had been on an upward trajectory in the economic and diplomatic realm since it opened up to the world outside. However, since the global politics has become more fraught and challenging due to continuous tug of war between the US and China as well as a growing external threat to India with the growing belligerence of China, it has become increasingly important to foresight the rise of India, at a time, when its domestic politics has blurred the lines between domestic politics and international politics and rhetoric are rife about India being projected as a ‘Vishwa Guru’, which lacks the material capacity to be one, that has started a debate among the policy circles of India.
At this juncture, one cannot help but wonder how the rise of India is being projected. The idea of India’s rise goes back to the Nehruvian era, when Nehru, being an idealist and a pragmatist, believed that India’s rise is inevitable and she would get her place in the global order, sooner rather than later. This led Nehru to carve out a policy of non-Alignment, a domestic innovation of India, to ward off the existing paths to foreign policy and follow a new one, based on India’s hard-fought freedom and camaraderie of Pan-Asianism (more broadly, anti-imperialism). This gave India a chance to be relevant on the stage of international politics despite being struggling with its domestic and economic problems. The same idea still pervades the consciousness of many Indians and nudge them to hark back to the idea of India’s rise.
The main underpinning of this, perceived, the rise of India is based on the premise of India’s exceptionalism, be it in terms of India’s culture or its evolution in the world, that has led the citizens of India to assert India’s sacred place in the international order. The idea also asserts the wishful thinking that India would be a different superpower, unlike the UK or the US or the rising China, which is why these claims gain legitimacy despite India being materially insufficient to take up the responsibility as the Global power. However, the rise of India in the diplomatic realm begs scrutiny as to why it might, or might not, be the next superpower.
Not only India’s culture and evolution in the world has been exceptional, but also its foreign policy which has withstood the tests of time wading external threats and hegemonism to make India stand out among the commons. As India was becoming more open, the avenues of its rise started opening up leading to the rise in the creditability of its voice. Today, India stands as one of the main aspirants to mark its presence at the high table (UNSC) while clocking its presence in other avenues like BRICS, G20 etc. At a time when India was a rising star, it became almost clear that India would be next in line with China. However, As India’s assertiveness has grown domestically so does it has grown internationally. This has ramification for India, whose exceptionalism tag was conferred on its head not for its assertiveness and thin skin when it comes to criticism, but for its rise as an exceptional democratic nation that has performed fairly- domestically, economically and otherwise. To this end, the moot point is, Is India bound to be a superpower should it continue on the same trajectory or do we need some course correction to do the same?
Take, for example, the case of the recent Galwan clashes wherein India found out that it was materially incapable to stand against China, economically as well as militarily, despite that domestic rhetoric proclaim India to be a victor, at a time when it has not been able to persuade China to resolve the issues in the remaining areas even after a year of the start of the clashes. Another case in point is India’s reaction towards rankings by some international organizations, which is dealt with through delegitimizing their credibility and not through looking for the flaws that have developed. The matter here is not the legitimacy, or illegitimacy, of these organizations but the way they have attracted criticism in India akin to China’s paranoia over its so-called core issues related to Hong Kong, Taiwan and Xinjiang or more broadly its one-China principle. (In one of my previous article, I did argue that it does not serve India's interest to expend its diplomatic capital in defending its domestic policies instead of using it to gain its interests in the diplomatic domain and that a successful foreign policy is the one that balances between the external and the internal environment). India’s exceptionalism, in my view, has never been the fringes that have grown in its consciousness but the broad acceptance that it has developed through its interactions with umpteen numbers of religions and cultures. This anomaly that is, about to be, omnipresent throughout India’s polity has cast a shadow on its rise, not for the sake of a hindrance but as a major roadblock in the way of India’s rise in the global realm.
When it comes to global politics, an amalgamation of principles of Saam, Daam, Dand, Bhed helps to devolve a foreign policy better suited for the domestic interest of that country. You can invent your foreign policy, correct its course, but you cannot radically change it without having some consequences, inside as well as outside. As India has risen on the world stage, its domestic policy and its economic engagement are being discussed exhaustively. However, the change in India’s praxis of innovating and dealing its way with the external environment has changed drastically. This has been partly because of growing intricacies in dealing with its neighbours and partly because of the blurred fine line between the way India work internally as well as externally. The need is for raising the material capabilities of India to deal with the growing tumult and craft a policy that best suits the domestic interests, not the political ones.
The idea to be a ‘Vishwa Guru’ seems elusive at the present point in time because of India’s lack of vision to be at the forefront while backing it with material capacity. It seems, in the eyes of some observers, today that India’s rise looks inevitable, take, for example, growing cosiness between India and the west as well as India’s growing strength at the world stage, but its foreign policy seems muddled with populism and chest-thumping when it is scrambling to adopt a synchronising policy at home and abroad, which are not sustainable as far as the foreign policy choices go and is a recipe that could easily turn into ambiguity leaving India in a quandary. India’s ascendence at the world stage hinges on its exceptionalism, a sense to innovate based on the existing capacities, that seems to be fading away when it is needed the most due to undertones that threaten the very undergirding of its rise. It is time to correct our course and work in unison, both domestically, economically and diplomatically, to clock back exuberant economic growth and flourish international engagement at the world stage. We all hope and bet on India's rise that something will happen. But hope cannot be a strategy.
Comments
Post a Comment