INDIA’S foreign policy is undergoing a metamorphosis. This assertion is no casting of aspersions. The inherent contradictions that have surfaced in recent foreign policy positions are, in fact, contained in the government’s own reports. The Annual Report of the Ministry of External Affairs for 2005-06 states: ‘In this tangibly transforming international environment, the fundamental tenets of India’s foreign policy have retained their essential validity; autonomy in decision-making, the commitment to the Panch Sheel or the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, friendly and cooperative relations with all countries, resolution of conflicts through dialogue and peaceful means, and equity in the conduct of international relations. The Common Minimum Programme of the UPA government has reaffirmed these basic principles.’ (p. i)

The Common Minimum Programme of the UPA government categorically states, ‘Independent foreign policy to be pursued to promote multi-polarity in world relations and oppose all attempts at unilateralism.’ Further, ‘While pursuing closer engagement and relations with the USA, independence of India’s foreign policy position on all regional and global issues will be maintained.’

Contrast this with the following that appears in the same report quoted above. Regarding relations with the USA, it states: ‘The bilateral relationship is anchored on common values and common interests.’ Further, ‘During the year, India and United States made a commitment to transform their steadily growing bilateral ties into a strategic partnership marked by frequent contacts at political and official levels. 2005 also saw a growing convergence of views on global, regional and bilateral issues of common concern between the two countries. The interactions focused on strategic and security issues, defence, counter- terrorism, counter-proliferation, trade and investment, science and technology, space, health, energy and environment.’ (p. vi)

This enlightenment of seeing a convergence of interests between India and the USA on a string of global and regional issues is no sudden development. Following the 11 May 1998 Pokhran-II nuclear tests, the then Vajpayee government had bent itself backward to curry favour with the USA. The USA, on its part, saw an opportunity for influencing India’s perceptions on global matters in its favour. Despite the persisting differences on the nuclear issue, President Clinton visited India in March 2000. A joint statement titled ‘India-US Relations: a Vision for the 21st Century’, popularly known as the ‘Vision Statement’, was issued. This statement confirmed, in a sense, the convergence of Indo-US pursuits for ensuring regional and international security. Later in September 2000, Vajpayee returned the visit and the consequent Indo-US joint declaration of 15 September carried forward this convergence.

 

For the sake of record, it must be noted that the early prodding for a pro-US shift of our foreign policy came when P.V. Narasimha Rao was the prime minister between 1991-96. This was when India, for the first time, conducted joint military exercises with the USA and entered into defence cooperation agreements. The theoretical justification for abandoning India’s non-alignment based foreign policy, however, came with the Vajpayee government. The National Security Advisor of the Vajpayee government, Brajesh Mishra, summed up this shift by stating, ‘In the post-Nehru period, non-alignment became a mantra just as Gandhiji’s nonviolent struggle had become the "moral path"; the fact that these policies were grounded in strict rationality and real politik was lost sight of. Escapism was often couched as being principled, and I can safely state that neither Gandhi nor Nehru would have appreciated being made into icons to propagate dogma. There is a new India today ready to question those shibboleths and take decisions on the basis of national interest.’

 

In this context, it would be necessary to briefly revisit the evolution of India’s non-aligned foreign policy. During the course of the Indian freedom struggle, at the 1928 Calcutta session of the Congress, a resolution stated: ‘The struggle of Indian people for freedom is part of the general world struggle against imperialism and the Congress has decided to develop contact with other countries and peoples who also suffered under imperialism and desire to combat it.’ India, thus, recognised that it had an ideological as well as a practical role to play in world affairs against imperialism, colonialism and all forms of oppression and discrimination.

Defining non-alignment, Jawaharlal Nehru speaking in the Lok Sabha in 1960 says: ‘As I have said repeatedly, I do not like the word "neutral" being applied to India. I do not even like India’s policy being referred to as "positive neutrality" as is done in some countries. Without doubt, we are non-aligned; we are uncommitted to military blocs, but the important fact is that we are committed to various policies, various urges, various objectives, and various principles very much so.’

What are these principles? On a later occasion, Nehru says: ‘So far as all these forces of fascism, colonialism or racialism or the nuclear bomb and aggression and oppression are concerned, we stand most emphatically and unequivocally against them.’

In 1949, Nehru states, ‘India is too big a country to be bound down by any country, however big it may be. India is going to be and is bound to be a country that counts in world affairs.’

Thus, non-alignment, as a cornerstone of our foreign policy, was neither limited by the Cold War bipolarity, nor was it an expression of opportunism to make the best of both the camps. It was based on certain principles and continues to be based on those principles. These principles, in turn, constitute the bedrock in today’s world to pursue multipolarity. Thus, while the CMP speaks of India pursuing a foreign policy that will promote multipolarity and oppose unilateralism, the endorsement of convergence of interests between USA and India in today’s world realities, ironically in the name of ‘national interest’ means in effect, the transmutation of India’s foreign policy into one of acquiescing to US global interests.

 

What are these global pursuits of USA today? Releasing his second term National Security Strategy (NSS) on 16 March 2006, President George Bush said: ‘The ideals that have inspired our history – freedom, democracy and human dignity – are increasingly inspiring individuals and nations throughout the world… We chose leadership over isolationism, and the pursuit of free trade and open markets over protectionism. We chose to deal with challenges now rather than leaving them for future generations. We fight our enemies abroad instead of waiting for them to arrive in our country. We seek to shape the world, not merely be shaped by it; to influence events for the better instead of being at their mercy.’

In order to establish such a world that the USA shall shape, President Bush went on to elaborate that this strategy is founded upon two pillars: ‘The first pillar is promoting freedom, justice and human dignity – working to end tyranny, to promote effective democracies and to extend prosperity through free and fair trade and wise development policies. The second pillar of the strategy is confronting the challenges of our time by leading a growing community of democracies.’

 

This ‘new world order’ that US imperialism is seeking to create today is nothing but an expression of its ‘unipolar’ world. Following the end of the Cold War bipolarity, the natural course of developments in international relations ought to have been a movement towards multipolarity. This natural and by far the more democratic world order is sought to be sabotaged and circumvented by the imposition of a unipolarity in the world under USA’s tutelage. This, it seeks to do through its 702 military installations throughout the world in 132 countries; its possession of nearly 10,000 active and operational nuclear warheads – 2,000 of these are on hair trigger alert. That the USA is on a permanent military footing was reconfirmed by President Bush when he began his NSS speech by stating ‘America is at war’.

It is this so-called US ‘war against terrorism’ that, in the first place, led to the brutal aggression, and, subsequently military occupation of Iraq. Both the reasons that the USA adduced to the world justifying its invasion have been exposed as the greatest untruths in modern history. No weapon of mass destruction was ever found and no link between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq with the Al Qaeda has ever been established.

Yet, the war goes on and is intensified with the recent massive aerial attack mounted on the religious town of Samarra. Even though President Bush dramatically declared that the war had ended on the 9 April 2003 (having begun on March 20), more than 90 per cent of US military casualties have occurred since. Nearly 2,200 Americans and hundred plus British soldiers have died so far with more than 16,000 wounded. 183,000 US led troops are currently in action and yet after three years there is no semblance of any social or civic order. Nearly a million Iraqis have perished. Civic amenities have completely collapsed. According to the Pentagon’s own estimates, there were 34,131 resistance attacks on the occupation forces in 2005, up from 26,496 that took place in 2004. Yet, George Bush has the temerity to say in his NSS speech, ‘We are fighting alongside Iraqis to secure a united, stable and democratic Iraq.’

 

An important element of US global strategy aimed to consolidate its hegemony and establish its unipolar world is the effort to control energy resources of our planet. The war against Iraq, the targeting of Iran, the hostility towards oil-rich Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez are all part of this strategy. The current targeting of Iran over its alleged violation of nuclear proliferation is directly connected with this strategic objective. An acid test for India’s independent foreign policy position should have come on this issue. Unfortunately, India is playing footsie with the USA on this issue. India’s concern, as articulated by our prime minister and several foreign policy spokesmen, was that India did not wish to have another nuclear weapon state in its neighbourhood. Fair enough. Many wish that there was a similar Indian concern about Israel which, reliable reports indicate, has more than 200 active nuclear warheads. In fact, India does not want anybody to have nuclear weapons. The famous Rajiv Gandhi plan, proposed at the UN General Assembly, was once touted as India’s commitment to universal nuclear disarmament. The very fact that this does not even figure in the current foreign policy lexicon, in itself, vindicates the shift currently taking place.

 

However, suppose for a moment, that Iran is not saying the truth (though, the International Atomic Energy chief has repeatedly stated that Iran was complying with all its instructions and cooperating with all its inspections) and is proceeding with a clandestine nuclear weaponisation programme, what should be India’s position on how to stop that? While India is justifiably right in not being a signatory, maintaining that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) is a discriminatory treaty, Iran is a signatory to the NPT. Any violations can, thus, be checked and Iran brought to book by the IAEA. Hence, the question of seeking to resolve the dispute with Iran outside the framework of the IAEA is clearly dragging it on the same road on which the USA dragged Iraq, a decade earlier. Referring Iran to the UN Security Council is clearly to earn legitimacy and ensure that the USA can do with Iran what it did with Iraq.

By siding with the USA on this issue, India has shifted from its declared objective of pursuing an independent foreign policy. If this position was due to India’s desire to conclude the recent Indo-US nuclear deal, then this is a capitulation reflecting crass opportunism. The danger is that this will lead to the unfolding of a US carrot and stick policy with India getting the wrong end of the stick to fall in line with US global strategic interests. The argument that India, on the Iran vote, went along with the P-5 permanent members of the UN Security Council and not with the USA, or that since the NAM countries were divided, India had no other option but to vote the way it did, holds no water. India’s position must be determined both by the principles of natural justice and its independent policy positions in our national interest.

 

Had India not deviated from its declared positions, it could have offered a more imaginative option to the world. The two sets of disputed issues on this question, viz., Iran’s sovereignty and its right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy, could have been addressed by suggesting that a joint nuclear facility with multinational staff drawn from various countries be established to supervise the disputed uranium enrichment that is taking place in Iran. India’s distinctiveness, as in the past, when it pioneered the non-aligned movement through the Afro-Asian Conference and later Bandung, lies in placing on world agenda options that few can refuse to accept. Unfortunately, in its eagerness to affect a ‘convergence of interests’ with the USA, such an approach was abdicated and an opportunity forsaken.

Seeking a convergence with the USA will have very serious ramifications, both for the global order and in our immediate region of South Asia. The USA has armed itself with two unilateral doctrines – one is the doctrine of pre-emptive strike, i.e., the right to militarily strike at any country which, in the US perception, does not suit its interests; the second is the doctrine of ‘regime change’. Condoleeza Rice has recently asked the US Senate to sanction $ 85 million for a regime change in Iran. Using the backdrop of the Purana Qila, Bush sought India’s cooperation for regime changes in Cuba, Syria, and North Korea.

The doctrine of pre-emptive strike found expression elsewhere. The London’s Sunday Telegraph (12 February 2006) says: ‘Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran’s nuclear sites as a ‘last resort to block Tehran’s efforts to develop an atomic bomb.’ A senior Pentagon adviser said, ‘This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment. This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months.’

It is, indeed, ironic that the USA pursues its global hegemonic ambitions by invoking democracy. Speaking to the UN General Assembly in September 2004, George Bush proposed the establishment of a UN Democracy Fund. The fund, he stated, ‘would help countries lay the foundations of democracy by instituting the rule of law and an independent court, free press, political parties and trade unions.’

 

Coming from a country which for most of the second half of the 20th century acted unilaterally, and militarily invaded independent countries from Vietnam to Afghanistan, this is, indeed, a travesty. Seen in this context, it is not merely ironic but unacceptable for India to have joined such a coalition by making a financial contribution equalling that of the USA – $10 million. Needless to add, this would serve as the international institutional framework that would legitimise the release of funds for ‘regime change’.

There is another element of concern for India. A part of US global strategy is the ‘containment of China’. A hallmark of India’s foreign policy has been the assiduous efforts to improve good neighbourly relations in our region. In fact, the CMP in its foreign policy section states that India shall accord, ‘highest priority to building closer political, economic and other ties with neighbours in South Asia.’ In fact, its ‘look East’ policy and ‘look West’ policy would both be jeopardised were India to be seen by the countries of these regions as being a strategic ally of US global designs.

 

In our immediate neighbourhood where uncertainty and strife exist in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, India will have to evolve concrete strategies to improve both bilateral and regional relations. Our own experience since independence has repeatedly demonstrated that only the pursuit of an independent foreign policy will yield positive results to realise these objectives.

It merits attention that wherever the USA has intervened in pursuit of its objectives, it has created and strengthened Islamic fundamentalism. The case of the Al Qaeda and Taliban is a classic example of the Frankenstein attacking its creator. Iraq was considered as one of the most secular of the Islamic countries at one point of time. The rise of fundamentalist forces is being fed today by the Iraqi people’s desire to get rid of the military occupation of their country.

Further, remember that there was also a 9/11 in 1973. This is a chilling coincidence of historical dates! On this very day, the duly, democratically-elected government led by the Socialist President of Chile, Salvador Allende, was toppled through a CIA-led military coup. What followed in Chile was decades of brutal murder, military dictatorship and abrogation of elementary human rights. In country after country in Central and Latin America – Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua among others – US intervened to establish pliable regimes that would toe its line and protect its interests. USA’s state terrorism and individual terrorist attacks like 9/11, both condemnable, feed on each other. The global war against terrorism cannot promote state terrorism while seeking to eliminate individual terrorism. As far as India’s fight against terrorism is concerned, this would be a self-defeating strategy. Such a strategy, however, will perfectly suit the USA to justify and strengthen its policies of state terrorism, as we are seeing in Iraq today, ironically in the name of fighting terrorism.

India’s legitimate concern to eliminate terrorism from this planet must echo the twin objective of fighting against both state and individual terrorism. It hardly needs underlining that this can be achieved only through the pursuit of an independent foreign policy and not through the seeking of a contrived ‘convergence with USA’. The times ahead are a great challenge to India and its foreign policy. India’s legitimate desire to enter the UN Security Council as a permanent member can materialise not by converting itself as a US appendage but as the legitimate leader of the developing world.

An urgent course correction in our foreign policy is required. Indian foreign policy has to, in a sense, return to its roots – the basic tenets which evolved through our freedom struggle. The world is undoubtedly changing. In today’s changing world, these fundamental tenets of our foreign policy continue to remain valid so as to evolve a multipolar world opposing unipolarity. Foreign policy must be based on principles to advance India’s interests, not based on opportunism and surrender to negate our principles.