| |
India: Thinking out of the Cold War
box
By Sultan Shahin
CHENNAI
- Calling for creativity in strategic thinking, Prime
Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee said recently: "It's
because New Delhi is changing its Cold War mindset that
it has come to wield clout as a global player." But many
strategic thinkers are still "caught in the time warp of
a Cold War mindset and strategic assumptions of an
earlier era", he lamented while addressing a combined
commanders' conference in South Block's war room.
The examples of creative thinking Vajpayee gave,
however, create the impression that he was merely
pleading for the continuation of the foreign policy he
has pursued over the past five years that he has been in
power.
Why did he need to so strongly advocate
the continuation of his policies at this juncture? There
is a clear awareness in his mind of a deep disquiet in
strategic thinkers both within the Hindu fundamentalist
family called Sangh Parivar to which he belongs, and
outside.
Despite its obvious successes over the
past few years, Indian foreign policy seems to be stuck
in a rut; India's chief concern - Pakistan-sponsored
cross-border terrorism in Kashmir - appears to be
largely unattended to, even though Vajpayee and his
government have left no stone unturned to rectify the
situation. This could be disastrous in an election year,
particularly because fighting terrorism was the chief
electoral plank for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP) that Vajpayee heads.
So what does Vajpayee
really want? To promote creative strategic thinking or
scuttle it now that it has begun in some earnest.
But first, what did he actually say in this very
important 30-minute speech. According to The Indian
Express, while he reiterated the stated position on
Pakistan - talks only if Islamabad is sincere about
stopping cross-border terrorism and "dismantling" its
infrastructure - he concentrated on painting the larger
picture. Of how India needs to be "pragmatic" for
boundary talks with China to succeed and how New Delhi
needs to look "beyond the geographical confines of South
Asia", in other words, India under Vajpayee would
continue trying to run away from South Asia.
The
prime minister argued how India has "exploited the
fluidities" of the New World Order to forge alliances
worldwide. And that it was a combination of "diplomatic
repositioning, economic resurgence and military
firmness" that's given the country a "new importance in
the international league".
Vajpayee said that
the "magnitude of these developments is not fully
grasped". "Too many of us are caught up in limiting
ideologies," he said, and "in a limited vision of what
India is doing and where it should be going". Citing
some examples, he said: "We have to re-established our
cordiality with USA, while strengthening our strategic
partnership with Russia." Added to this, he said, was
the summit-level dialogue with the European Union and
ASEAN, a key role in Cancun, discussions on
India-Russia-China cooperation, and on
India-Brazil-South Africa ties.
Regarding his
recent peace initiative with Pakistan, Vajpayee said
that "our constant effort is to encourage those elements
in Pakistan who recognize the folly of permanent
hostility towards India".
Referring to China,
Vajpayee said that the recent decision of the two
governments to appoint special representatives to
discuss the boundary question from a political
perspective was a "particularly significant" measure. A
final resolution of the boundary question, he said,
would release considerable "military energies and
finances" for other more "purposeful activities". It is,
therefore, a "strategic objective" and to achieve it,
"we should be willing to take some pragmatic decisions",
Vajpayee said.
Saying that in the "globalized
world", every strategy is inter-disciplinary, Vajpayee
called for close synergy between "our security agencies,
our armed forces, our diplomats and our finance,
commerce, energy and other ministries." For, in the 21st
century, war in whatever form can be won only through
multiple levers of power."
As for the "war on
terrorism", the prime minister said that in the recent
past he has been stressing the need to develop
technologies to counter actions of terrorists and
insurgent groups. Given India's continuous exposure to
the proxy war from across the borders, he said "it is
important that we evolve a comprehensive
counter-terrorism doctrine backed by manpower and high
technology".
This is as clear an indication as
any that in the near future India's flip-flop on
Pakistan and terrorism will continue. Tiny Pakistan, a
virtually failed state before the BJP came to power,
will continue to play volley ball with all Indian peace
offers in a new version of diplomatic ping pong that the
Chinese invented earlier. And the giant of a country
that India is, with all its prosperity and nuclear and
military prowess, will be able to do nothing. We have
exhausted all our options, from peace offers to keeping
a million-strong army at the border for almost a year,
it would seem.
Vajpayee received an early
indication of how uneasy India feels right in the same
meeting. Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishan Advani
pointed out that although the worldview on terrorism
changed after September 11, it "has not prevented our
adversaries from continuing to do what they are doing".
Advani has to be circumspect in what he says.
But those not in the government and particularly those
in the opposition are not. One wonders if before making
his speech Vajpayee came across a column published the
same day in the Indian Express. A known admirer of the
prime minister, chief editor Shekhar Gupta never misses
an opportunity, not even in the column in question, to
praise Vajpayee's supposed statesmanship. But he, too,
poses uncomfortable questions: "If we have handled our
international relations so brilliantly well, are we
feeling that much more secure and settled in this new
world?
"The answer, unfortunately", he
continues, "cannot be an unqualified yes. In spite of
our significant foreign policy successes, our remarkable
display of pragmatism in exploiting the emerging new
equations, our internal discourse is still caught up in
one word: terrorism. This is the buzzword with the
entire ruling establishment - even the minister of state
for civil aviation dismissed the increased costs imposed
on his airlines because of the ban on overflights over
Pakistan as a 'small price to pay for fighting
terrorism'."
You can't blame him. Both our
political and foreign policy establishments are so
overwhelmed by the mantra of cross-border terrorism that
neither they, nor the popular mind in general, is able
to savor what should have been a feeling of stability
and security unprecedented in our independent history.
"It could be partly because of the way the issue
of terrorism has come to dominate our internal political
discourse. But could it be partly also because much of
our establishment, including the foreign policy
establishment, has failed to move in step with the
change that has come about at this larger level? For
example, at a time when India is doing so brilliantly
well on the global stage, why should its senior-most
diplomats be delivering speeches accusing all of its
neighbors - except Maldives, mercifully - of actively
fomenting terrorism across its borders? Is it because
the favorable winds have passed quietly over the
bureaucracy's heads? Or is it also getting carried away
by the domestic political discourse?"
So Gupta
puts the blame on domestic political discourse being too
much focused on terrorism. But of course there is a
reason for that. India is indeed faced with the problem,
and not just in Kashmir. Maoist and Naxalite terrorist
violence, for instance, almost claimed the life of the
most acclaimed chief minister of a state not so long ago
and continues to plague several large states more than
anyone in opposition. The Sangh Parivar ideologues are
themselves worried at the turn of events and the
government's inability to do anything about it, though
not many of them would come out in public and say so.
Opposition Congress member Mani Shankar Aiyar
puts the blame squarely on the prime minister's
inability to comprehend the changing world scenario and
a new world order that seems to be emerging,
particularly in the context of the US invasion of Iraq.
Europe is now sufficiently formidable to provide an
alternative, if not necessarily always competing, pole
to the US. Moreover, this alternative Europe does not
end at the Urals. Russia is on Europe's side in
resisting unilateralism.
"We must see our
opportunity there," says Aiyar. "It is the Non-Aligned
Movement that is dead, not the mainsprings of
non-alignment as a philosophy of foreign policy. So,
which would serve us better - a subsidiary alliance with
the United States or the pursuit of independence in
concert with those who want a participatory world order?
"But, of course," he says, "so long as we
continue to indulge in the trifling abuse which
[Pakistani President Pervez] Musharraf and Vajpayee
exchanged at the UN, Pakistan will remain an albatross
around our necks, reducing a potential influential world
power like India to an alley cat squabbling with the
Pakistanis."
What should worry Vajpayee more
than the comments of opposition leaders and independent
strategists, however, is the debate going on within the
Sangh Parivar. Away from the public glare, Parivar
strategists are chafing not so much at Pakistan for
treating India in such a cavalier fashion - that is only
to be expected - but at the arrogance of the US, despite
India's unquestioned support to it in all its endeavors,
especially in the "war on terror". What has particularly
irked them recently is Assistant Secretary of State
Christina Rocca's recent remarks to the effect that both
India and Pakistan are responsible for making South Asia
a nuclear flashpoint and that they should start a
dialogue soon, for which India is obviously not ready.
This amounts to endorsing the Pakistani stand that
dialogue between the two countries should start
immediately.
US officials from President George
W Bush downwards continue to praise India's bugbear,
Musharraf, for his support in the "war on terror". At a
joint hearing of the International Relations Committee
(Sub-Committee of the Asia-Pacific) and the
International Terrorism, Non-Proliferation and Human
Rights Committee, recently Rocca said that Washington
was working "closer than ever with and getting enormous
support from President Musharraf", as it pertains to
capturing or destroying the remnants of the Taliban and
al-Qaeda. Clearly, even while making the point that
India is a "victim of terror", the US is in no mood to
challenge Pakistan for the goings on in the
sub-continent or question Islamabad for its dubious
stance on missile and nuclear technologies
proliferation.
Also irksome for the Sangh
ideologues is the arrogance with which American scholars
like Stephen Cohen, senior fellow with the foreign
policy studies program of Washington's Brookings
Institute, come to India and speak openly to Indian
strategists in terms that equate India with Pakistan,
hold India responsible for the ills of South Asia and
consider it responsible for making South Asia the most
dangerous place in the world. In two think tank meetings
held in Chennai recently, Cohen gave Indians an earful
of what they didn't want to hear. A couple of Sangh
ideologues present in both the meetings were foaming at
the mouth with anger.
As these meetings were
supposed to be confidential - though it is difficult to
understand why strategic thinkers have to be so
secretive - one can't directly quote anyone. However,
what Cohen told The Hindu in response to a question
about Indian peace offers to Pakistan may reveal part of
his mindset. "The threat held out by a few ministers -
that this would be the last time India took the
initiative to hold talks with Pakistan - was mere
rhetoric," he said. "I am used to hearing from Indian
officials that this is the last offer. Then give them
the really last offer and still again give them the
really last offer. This is largely rhetoric. But I hope
that Pakistan reciprocates significantly. But it is
going to be difficult for the Pakistanis to do that
because they are so wrapped up around Kashmir."
That Pakistan treats serious peace offers from
India with contempt and comes up with responses that can
only be called obscene doesn't seem to bother Cohen and
other US strategists or Bush administration officials,
for that matter. The problem with really creative
strategic thinking, however - not the Vajpayee variety
of pouring old wine into new bottles, or indeed just
changing the packaging - is that the new worldview that
is emerging is not going to be acceptable to the Sangh
Parivar any time soon. In fact, I doubt if it would be
acceptable to Aiyar's own Congress party.
The
emerging worldview was articulated most forcefully and
clearly to Indian journalists by Bulgarian President
Georgi Parvanov recently. While sharing India's concerns
over terrorism, he almost debunked the "terrorism is
terrorism" position by indicating that there was a
social side to the problem as well. He made it clear to
a question from the Indian media that while Bulgaria was
committed to the ongoing "war against terrorism", it
believed that there were two dimensions. One, that
terrorism must be opposed firmly, and two, it was
important to understand the deep social roots of the
problem. Indian spin-doctors could only respond by
claiming that he actually did not mean what the Indian
media thought he had meant.
Unfortunately, the
Bulgarian president had been crystal clear in his
observations, reports Seema Mustafa of the Asian Age,
who was present in the briefing. Bulgarian journalists
pointed out that this has been his consistent line. Most
analysts in Sofia were of the view that this was the
only way to handle terrorism, that it could not be
treated as a law and order problem alone.
"You
keep killing terrorists without handling the very real
social reasons for the problem and you will ensure that
the menace never ends," was the view of a senior
Bulgarian journalist.
Comments Mustafa: "This,
in fact, appears to be the view of most of the world
with the US, Israel and India virtually standing out in
their refusal to concede that there is a very important
social side to the problem of terrorism. That there is a
reason why young people are joining extremist outfits,
how and why they are being motivated to a point where
they are willing to commit suicide, and the impact this
and counter violence have on the socio-political
situation in the region."
The roots-of-violence
and causes-of-terrorism view that Musharraf is so fond
of pontificating. No music to Indian ears, certainly.
Neither for the BJP nor for the Congress, or for that
matter the socialists or communists. India has a
considered and consensual view today - terrorism is
terrorism. Period. If it means being alone in the world,
with even other states like the US or Israel that hold
similar views not helping out, then so be it.
Given the choices, it will not be easy for India
to be creative in its strategic thinking. Not for
Vajpayee. Not for Sonia Gandhi, the Congress leader.
Certainly not for the Sangh Parivar or the communist and
socialist flagbearers. The options are limited indeed.
(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
