‘For peace along border, one must adhere to agreements’
Democrats — each very different from the other. Yet, each raised the level of relationship with India further. Each President has developed on the legacy of the previous one when it comes to India. And if you follow the debates in the US now, you will find many differences between the competing candidates, but India is a common point. There are many other policies in which the candidates criticise each other. But that is not happening when it comes to India. I actually believe that India has bipartisan, or in a sense non-partisan, support in American politics. Our footprint is very wide and so is our acceptability. Different sets of politicians who disagree on many things agree on India. And I think that is a very good place to be.
Pakistan has already rejected the NIA charge sheet in Pulwana attack, where both the country and the perpetrator from that country has been named. This has happened before in Pathankot attack and in 26/11. With Pakistan living in absolute denial over in-house terrorism targeting India, is there any way forward in this relationship?
Many countries have disputes with their neighbours and it is not that unusual. But can you show me where in the world you have a neighbour who openly practises cross-border terrorism? And not just today, but for some years now and does not even bother to hide it? A neighbour who will not do normal trade with you even though you are offering a most favoured nation status. Who will not do normal people-topeople contact. And who will not allow connectivity at a time when the world is becoming more connected. If the fundamentals of international relations are not working with one particular neighbour, the question that I ask myself is should you or should you not be calling that out.
To me, the issue is not under what mechanism or instrument should the engagement take place. That is what has preoccupied political and media debates in our country. My point is that the very basis of international relations between neighbours need to be addressed. This is a very, very unique situation. There is no country that uses cross border terrorism in such a prolific and open way. And not just against India. We must have the self-confidence to tell that country that this cannot be the basis for conduct of relations.
QUAD is the new acronym that everyone, particularly China, is looking at. Can you explain what QUAD means and where does it go from here?
When the world changes, you will not only have new acronyms but new concepts. QUAD is one of the plurilaterals, a working arrangement, a convergence. The Cold War was a world of agreements, a Western Bloc which like the opposing Soviet Bloc agreed amongst themselves. Today, your interests will coincide with others on certain issues. So, the overlaps are issue based and therefore, you would have convergences with different powers. QUAD reflects the convergence of participating countries in areas like maritime security, connectivity and counterterrorism. It is part of a future world. Even though people are attributing a novelty to this, there is another acronym called RIC (Russia, India and China) going on for 20 years. BRICS is yet another one. They too are plurilateral and issue based.
China sees QUAD as an alliance against itself and this has led to people like Imran Khan saying that US is using India as a frontline state in the context of current Ladakh stand-off?
Think about it: India is a civilisational state of very unique nature. Look at our history. Because we went through two very difficult centuries, we particularly prize our independence. Some people feel that because they did something, we will also do the same. India has a certain self-perception of itself. India has a personality of its own. India has interests of its own. India has a character of its own. It cannot be defined negatively as being against somebody. Those who say all this — they are perhaps reflecting their own history and their own self-worth. This is certainly not India.
It may be hard for diplomats to digest, but the Indian Street has often displayed better instincts than Lutyens’ Delhi when it comes to assessing opportunities and risks abroad. Their geopolitical understanding may not be formal. But they intuitively know with whom to trade and where to travel. Their choices in emigration and education were made well ahead of policy shifts by Indian diplomacy. A game-changing event like 9/11 was seen for what it was. The sharp popular imagery of nations has also captured the complexity of diplomacy. Say what you will, but the Street has a well-developed instinct, whether it is about Russia or America, China or Pakistan.
Now, this is not to suggest that the measured deliberations of statecraft are less important than the passions of society. But it is also a fact that we have entered a different era where the availability of information, tools of technology and cultural identities drive contemporary nationalism. The democratization of societies that bring to the fore more grounded politics also contributes to this process. Therefore, convolutions of policy and the accumulated weight of experiences sometimes struggle to meet the demands of society, particularly on issues where public opinion is exercised. The challenge today is to strike the right balance between societal dynamics and the mechanics of policy making. Mandarins can no longer be impervious to the masses.
An inability to reconcile the two can only come at the cost of political credibility, a phenomenon that we have seen in so many other countries. India is obviously not immune to this paradigm shift and the changed discourse reflects a newer era with its own driving forces. How to capture Indian nationalism in policy terms is a complex task that must simultaneously address issues of history, identity, interests and politics.
Among the more arrogant assertions of an era of hubris was that of the ‘end of history’. The complacency of this pronouncement is only matched by its limitation as a Eurocentric analysis that disregarded what was happening in Asia at the same time. But nevertheless, we were supposedly staring at a universal and invincible globalized order led by the US. However, what appeared then as permanent was a transient moment of American unipolarity, as it was with other powers in history before. Larger competitiveness and political contestation proceeded to return the world to a more natural diversity.
The real truth about this revival of nationalism is that it has actually been a very durable basis for organizing societies. At various times, it has defeated conflicting ideologies that appealed to both larger and narrower loyalties. Multinational empires struggled with nationalist sentiment and by and large, lost out.
But national entities that encountered sub-national dissensions have usually won. Western imperialism was eventually undone by nationalist sentiments awakening in their former colonies.
Communism was the next of the transnational ideologies on a global scale. This too eventually foundered when socialism acquired national characteristics.
Faith-based movements have also attempted to cut across national divides. Being outcomes of high emotion and exceptional circumstances, nationalism eventually returns them to business as usual. The globalization of our era represents yet another effort at transcending an entrenched organizational principle of modern politics. But because it rests on a deeper technology basis and stronger economic interests, its tension with nationalism will continue for the foreseeable future.
Contestation between two such powerful rationalizations is not unnatural. So, rather than visualize either of them as an event, we should see them as currents of history.
Coming in different sizes and shapes, nationalism can be assertive, reactive or just expressive. The confident category reflects the real and psychological outcome of shifts in the world power hierarchy. It is represented by the rise of nations like China and India, of a continent like Asia and the consequent rebalancing of the global order. A second driver of greater nationalism is its very opposite: the reaction in more privileged societies to this rebalancing. The offshoring of manufacturing and creation of extensive global supply chains has inevitably had an impact on the West. A third category is the accumulated impact of how sharper cultural identities across the world have played on each other. The epicenter for that has been West Asia; and other regions have reacted to it over time. We should expect uneasy coexistence and shifting equations between globalist and nationalist forces as neither can prevail. And the world it will produce will be very contentious.
India is no exception to the larger trends that have strengthened nationalism. In emotional terms, nationalism obviously contributes to a stronger sense of unity. In political terms, it signifies a greater determination to combat both sub-national and supra-national challenges to it. In policy terms, it focuses on how to maximize national capabilities and influence.
In India’s current situation, that has a particular relevance to security. Overall, a nationalistic foreign policy outlook is likely to approach the world with more confidence and greater realism. What may be different about India is that unlike in many other powers, that sense of nationalism does not translate into an ‘us versus the world’ mentality. For reasons that derive from our innate pluralism, there is a tradition of reconciling the nationalism with global engagement. Not driven by victimhood, it has the potential to serve as a bridge between the established and emerging orders.
At a time when most are pursuing interests narrowly, it is to India’s benefit that it takes a more expansive view of the world. By stepping forward in difficult situations, it can not only underline its greater capabilities and confidence but also build its unique brand as a generous power. This imagery fits in well with the embrace of the world that is inherent in Indian thinking and reinforces its positioning as a power that can bridge divides.