Sovereignty over Internationalism
Banning Tiktok and other Chinese apps is just one small step towards India’s geo-political repositioning.
THE HISTORY OF INDIA’S ‘FRIENDZONING’
It is the winter of 1947. Sardar Patel has just completed the mammoth task of bringing 562 princely-states together to form the Indian Union. Each of these negotiations has been conducted domestically, with minimal intervention from international agencies.
On the question of Kashmir however, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru decides to take it to the United Nations. Therein lay the seeds of India preferring internationalism over sovereignty. India made a conscious choice to come across as moral and righteous (“woke” in today’s terms), over its domestic national interest.
This was followed by half a century of passivism, of trying to monkey-balance hugely extreme geo-political realities. Insisting on being non-aligned while nations took sides, the widely reported rejection of a permanent seat at UNSC, insisting on “Hindi-chini bhai bhai”, dismantling and sometimes endangering RAW of its original mandate (despite their successful interventions in East Pakistan), toggling between support from the USA (1962 war) and USSR (1971 war). All these prevented a long-term strategic partnership with either the US or other western democracies.
Domestic national interest took a backseat to create space for woke optics of Gandhian righteousness.
In short, internationalism trumped sovereign-interests.
International Law, which forms the basis of bilateral and multilateral relationships, is framed by the behaviour of states, not the other way around. As opposed to domestic law, international law is horizontal and not vertical. It is the set of rules which different sovereign states “agree” to comply with, and hence cannot be enforced like domestic law can. Technically speaking, nations are free to walk out of treaties or conventions, disregard rules of international law, simply because they are sovereigns.
So here we were, living in a conundrum. While India insisted on internationalism over sovereignty; nations India was dealing with insisted on the opposite. India found itself “friendzoned” into a Stockholm syndrome.
INDIA JOINS THE
GYM AND FLEXES ITS MUSCLES
Contemporary history is stuffed with examples of nations asserting themselves over internationalism. The US and Israel recently walked out of UNESCO. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “This is a brave and moral decision, because UNESCO has become a theatre of the absurd. Instead of preserving history, it distorts it.” Even Pakistan found the muscle to object to ICJ’S instructions on the Kulbhushan Jadhav case. Between the extremes of USA and Pakistan, lie a huge range in nations that are proudly asserting their sovereign rights.
China exited the arbitration on the South China Sea dispute. China built market-access through WTO’S international trade order under the WTO, and at the very same time, denied access to its own market, and allegedly indulged in IP theft. Reports even suggested that China may be stealing back their heritage that was stolen from them.
India has only recently realised it has this muscle. The Vajpayee government tested India’s nuclear capabilities and refused to be bogged down by the NPT.
More recently, India responded militarily to the acts of terrorism in Uri and in Balakot. Compare this to India’s response to much larger terror attacks on Parliament or the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.
When Malaysian PM commented on CAA and Kashmir, India responded with banning their palm-oil (one of their biggest exports). There has been a very disciplined silence since.
When Iran and Turkey criticised India, our External Affairs Minister, S Jaishankar said “we are getting to know who our friends are really are”. Former RAW chief Vikram Sood echoes a growing sentiment, that India needs to stop being the the “good boy” of international affairs; and advocates responding to terror with “make the sponsor pay a price he cannot afford”. Defence policy analyst, Abhijit Iyer-mitra stresses, “Morality and principle will get you slaughtered—the Chinese are ruthless.”
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, addressing India’s troops on the border boldly asserted that the “age of expansionism is over”. Such strong posturing is unprecedented. A very visible shift in India’s foreign policy and rejection of Nehruvian pacifism.
Gautam Chikarmane of ORF thoughtfully wonders if it is time that “a nation comes together and sheds its Tamasic mode and embraces the Rajasic spirit?”
THREE-PRONGED RESPONSE: DIPLOMATIC, SECURITY AND ECONOMIC FRONTS
The recent ban on Tiktok and 59 Chinese apps needs to be seen in this wider context, of a shift in India’s foreign policy. The soft Indian state of yore wouldn’t have taken a bold, cold, calculated stand like this.
At the very least, this is a reality-check for China, given its checkered record of respecting international law. More practically, they should now expect reciprocity, with India restricting their technologies, exactly the way they have restricted others’. With the United States recently banning Huawei and ZTE over national security concerns, China may have just pulled the US into India’s side of the boxing ring.
This limited move of restricting market-access (albeit for national security reasons), coupled with domestic calls for “Atma Nirbhar Bharat” (remember, President Reagan’s call to boycott Japanese goods in the US worked), may just trigger the butterfly-effect that makes China question its choices.
So is the “digital ban” an isolated act? Definitely not! Is this reassertion likely to amplify? Most likely.
On the diplomatic front, India has just raised the Hong Kong protests at the UN; reminding China to address the issue “properly, seriously and objectively”. Taiwan and Tibet may also get discussed, both openly and through Track 2 channels. Soft, opportunistic coalition opportunities exist with nations like Japan and the US, and with multiple smaller nations in the Pacific rim. Remember, East Timor has as many votes in the UN as UK does.
On the digital security front, one should expect further sanctions. After all, banning a few apps is pointless if the handsets as well as digital infrastructure is manufactured in China. This opens up a whole new box of possibilities in India’s 5G journey.
On the economic front, certain domestic industrybodies were successful in lobbying for anti-predatorypricing policies. We should not rule out an outright ban on certain products and industries, and expect “processing delays” to approvals and certifications with Chinese funds and companies. That Chinese firms haven’t invested in engaging on policy and government affairs, only complicates it further for them. Corporate India also seems to have joined in the chorus with companies proudly setting goals to be “free of Chinese inputs” over the next couple of years.
OF SUN TZU AND CHANAKYA
One cannot blame China for trying to dominate the world. This ambition has been part of their “middle kingdom dominance” strategy for ages. Digital Colonization is just one part of that strategy.
Unfortunately for China, India wrote the manual for resisting colonization. Marry this with the new-found love for Sovereignty over Internationalism, and you have a metaphorical Sparta.
China has always revered Sun Tzu. India is finally starting to invoke Chanakya!
Anuraag Saxena is based in Singapore and has been featured/published in BBC, Washington Post, The Diplomat, Economic Times, Sunday Guardian, Man’s World, Doordarshan, and SPAN. He is passionate about heritage and culinary-history and tweets at @anuraag_saxena. Raghav Pandey is a Visiting Fellow at India Foundation and an Assistant Professor of Law at NLU Mumbai.