IN 1997, one of India’s leading modern historians, Sunil Khilnani, published his epochal The Idea of India, which distilled Nehru’s vision for a newly independent India. Khilnani’s eloquent work remains the most important contemporary text for readers wishing to acquaint themselves with the aspirations of India’s founders, above all Jawaharlal Nehru. Yet, in the example of a recently deceased Nehruvian, Indian citizens will find what one might call the ‘other’ idea of India. This was the idea that Nehru and his followers had, not for India herself, but of India’s place in the world.
This idea was born of the simple belief that India had not freed herself from one master in order to submit to another. Instead, the idea of India in the world was of a strong, proud, self-reliant and humane nation taking its rightful place on the international stage. As this outcome was by no means certain, it prompted India’s first administrators to beat a path to this civilization’s ‘inevitable’ greatness. To face the future they turned to the past because the world arena continued to be dominated by imperial powers. From the experiences of the freedom struggle they derived the foundational premise of Indian foreign policy, namely that India’s sovereignty could reliably be defended only by Indian efforts. In terms of policy itself, this meant that India would strive to become one of the poles in a multipolar world order, which would allow it to strategically ally with other powers in order to deny any other country the opportunity to undermine India’s sovereignty and security.
One of the greatest practitioners of this policy was J.N. Dixit whose sudden demise on 3 January 2005 came as a shock to the country. Given his remarkable career, Dixit will no doubt be the subject of official commendations and fond remembrances by his many friends and associates. But, in the midst of these developments, it is perhaps useful to meditate briefly on the philosophical principles that guided the Nehruvians of his generation. The defining feature of Indian foreign policy for the members of this generation was the search for Indian autonomy. This is often misunderstood by commentators who view pre-Pokhran Indian foreign policy as ‘idealistic’. Thus, when critics today argue that ‘non-alignment’ is a redundant concept and should be replaced by a strategy of cozying up to the leading powers, they fail to understand that non-alignment was not an end unto itself, but rather the means to something higher, namely autonomy.
When India set out to create the non-aligned movement, Nehru used his acute sense of historical development to cement India’s position as a representative of the developing and oppressed nations of this world against the imperial powers which organized international affairs to their own advantage. Little has changed in the past fifty years. An independent stance in world affairs continues to embody India’s normative and strategic interests since we are a rising power opposed by the established world powers who wish to cede us no ground (as is best evidenced by the continued reluctance to offer India a permanent veto in the Security Council). Until now our autonomous foreign policy has perhaps been the most successful foreign policy strategy of the twentieth century.
It is worth remembering that every other developing country that allied with either of the superpowers had their social fabric destroyed by the ravages of the Cold War. The China that we mythologize today, for example, has given its own citizens more grief in the past half century than any foreign nation ever gave them. Similar examples can be seen in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, not least of which is Pakistan, which has acquired new infections with each new partner. By contrast, India has lived by its Constitution and the democratic socialism enshrined in it, which is why we are one of the few developing countries in the world that survived the Cold War without undergoing the traumas of communism or fascism. Let us, therefore, be certain of this one fact – we owe our current security and stability to the wisdom and foresight of a generation of men and women who understood the nature of international relations and worked it to India’s advantage.
If the Nehruvians shared one common goal – securing India’s sovereignty and her place in the international state system – they occasionally differed over the means by which this end would be achieved. Following the disastrous war of 1962, Nehruvians like J.N. Dixit understood that India had to become shrewder in her search for security. It was better to speak softly and carry a big stick than to defencelessly hector, as some were wont to do. Every option to safeguard our security was pursued, including the development of a complete nuclear arsenal – discreetly when possible and stubbornly when necessary.
Today, many have forgotten this valuable lesson from modern Indian history. Instead of displaying a pragmatic and sensible approach to international politics, some of us display a sanctimoniousness that knows no bounds. We condemn the very nuclear weapons that defend our state and think that lunches, roundtables and foundation grants will safeguard us from the predatory powers that bear us little goodwill. Instead of accepting the nature of international relations as a tragic arena demanding the balancing of power and the use of cunning, we insist that India should lead the way in disarming itself so that it stands defenceless once again before the imperial ambitions of other countries.
We would perhaps do better by disarming ourselves of our credulity. While we must endeavour at every opportunity to pursue peace where we can find it, our priority must be to secure India’s security by developing our strategic forces, especially our military, intelligence and scientific establishments. The sanctity and respect we demand can only be won through a revision of the world order, which will not come by wishing, but by doing what is necessary. Subsequently, when we extend one hand forward in friendship, we must let it be known that we always have the ability to ball the other hand into a fist. However, if we remain weak we will always seem despicable in the eyes of those nations that would rather dominate us than co-exist with us.
It is in the final chapter of his life that Dixit revealed the intricate connection between the two ideas of India. Repulsed, like all patriots, by the communal atrocities in Gujarat, he chose to enter political life. While some members of his generation betrayed the founders of this country by prostrating themselves before the fundamentalists in their desperate search for sinecures and national awards, Dixit joined the Congress Party when it seemed to be at its lowest ebb. I am certain he did this because he believed in the basic Nehruvian idea that in order to be externally powerful India must be internally united. This can never come about under a fundamentalist government which weakens our country by turning Indians against Indians. Similarly, he recognized that India needed economic reform because only a prosperous India could afford the ventures necessary to secure its safety.
Therefore, avoiding the extremes of Right and Left, J.N. Dixit chose the party whose progressive and moderate ideology remains the only realistic avenue for fulfilling India’s tryst with destiny. It is likely that Dixit – along with much of the country – was astonished by the resurgence in the electoral fortunes of the Congress. For him personally, it meant being catapulted from (an active) retirement to the office of the NSA, thus giving him the chance to leave a lasting imprint on the relatively new office. Tragically, this moment did not last long enough for Dixit to institute radical changes, especially in regard to diplomatic relations, nuclear doctrine and intelligence reform.
The bitter irony is that just as India needed someone to steer it through the challenges of the post-Cold War world, we lost the one man who best embodied the lessons of the past that continue to be relevant to the future. Still, we would do J.N. Dixit’s memory a fine service by trying to understand what he understood best, namely that our Nehruvian destiny is better pursued by shrewd realism than by shrill voices, for snakes can only be put to sleep by charming, not hectoring.
