This topic has attracted huge debate in the academic circle of Political Science and International Relations. Various theories and views have been put forward to explain the true nature of Indian Foreign Policy and its constitution. Before examining the nature of Indian Foreign Policy and constitution, I would like to explain the circumstances and bases which accounted for the formulation. It is important to note here that formulation of any such policies and documents for any country requires a special and concerted efforts and skills. This becomes even more complicated for the country like India as we belong to the nation which is the home of the people of diversified interests and aspirations and any radical and fundamentalist policies will only work for the disintegration of one of the oldest civilization. On the other side policies of the countries like US and countries of north western Europe are much simpler and less complicated due to host of factors like homogeneity in society and their stable boundaries and friendly and developed neighbors and moreover they also share common interest and elitist attitude with each other.
India’s recorded history started with the Indus valley civilization and since then it has come to an age. Various factors helped in enriching her culture and tradition and finally led to the formulation of composite culture. Mauryan King Ashoka was among the first in the subcontinent to spread the feeling of fraternity and brother hood. Further, various attacks and invasions to her frontier led to the accumulation of people of number of cultures. However all the invasion, right from mighty Greeks to ubiquitous Islam, led to enrich the diversity of the land and its people. All of these invaders were not only absorbed by the superiority of her culture but also they settled across her frontier and in due course of time they became as much the part of the land and its people as their earlier counterparts.
However the arrival of Europeans was dramatically different. In the early 18th century society of Hindustan was caught in the vicious web of social obscurantism and religious superstition and had become the pool of brahminical dominance. While on other hand Europeans were enlightened and had already organized on the modern lines in the aftermath of Renaissance. Interaction of these two, altogether different, societies led to the revival of our social structure and rise in the educational base of the country. However the biggest achievement of this phase was the birth of a nation which we today called as India. Here I would like to quote the difference between a nation and a country. Country really refers to geographical characteristics while nation refers to political and social characteristics. A nation is made up of states and a country is a nation defined geographically. This provided the much needed and solid foundation for the freedom struggle as it helped the Indians to be Indian and also provided a common identity to the nation.
With this background, world witnessed the rise of one of the greatest man of the century, known as Gandhi, who led India to independence with his charismatic leadership and principles of truth and non violence. It is often argued that Gandhi delayed Indian independence. Though it is very difficult to test this fictitious hypothesis but one thing is very true and well justified that this man has given India a base around which our might democracy revolves and because of this we earned the accolades of being the largest and one the most stable democracy in last six decades or so, inspite of its diversified interests and aspirations of her sons and daughters.
After the independence, a need for an acceptable constitution and independent foreign policy has risen and subsequently it led to the formulation of constitution and foreign policy. However any document of national important would not be acceptable until it accepts the principles and cultures which it inherits from its history and thus a constitution and a foreign policy was documented by keeping these things in the mind.
Now I would like to look into the notion if we are a soft state. Indian independence came into the time when World War 2 had already come to an end and world was being lobbied into two blocs. For the country like India which has the exploitative past and which was gifted with wretched poverty and has the hopelessly underdeveloped social structure, it would have been the easiest foreign policy to join any bloc especially of the USA in the hope of their merciful response. But what did India do? We not only rejected such proposal to join any bloc but also we went one step ahead and helped in the formation of largest group of nations, after UN, NAM and decided to judge any international issues on the basis of its merit. Can a soft state do this?
On the issue of terrorism and Pakistan, Indian policies have hugely criticized for being soft. Most of the scholar and so called intellectual class of Indian elites compared it with USA and went to the extent of saying that, had USA be in such condition response would have been drastically different. I pity them. The policies and measures opted by USA to counter the 9/11 attack is much different than Indian action would have been. Why? Because USA is not waging these wars in its neighborhood but India is. How can India be as hard as USA? Any aggression with neighborhood will only attract instability and violence in the region as is the case of Israel and south west Asia. Further we should not forget that Indian neighborhood is much different than that of developed world and so called elite states. We are surrounded with number of instable, underdeveloped nations, dominated by traditional society which is divided on number of ethnic and religious lines. The presence of China is only making situation worse. How can India be as hard as USA and other such other nations? Instead, we evolved a novel foreign policy which is based on the ideologies which we inherited from our great ancestors.
Similarly on the issue of nuclear deal, we were able to clinch the deal that too without signing CTBT and NPT inspite of strong opposition from China, Pakistan and such other nations. At the same time we successfully demonstrated our support for nuclear disarmament by publishing our “No first use policy” which is unparallel and unmatched in the world politics. How can a country like India be called as soft?
On the issue of Global warming, too, we successfully asserted our opinion and views which was, though, opposed by so called developed world. But instead of succumbing to the pressure we put forward our interest and aspiration regarding the issue which was again based on shared responsibility. How can we soft?
Time and again India has demonstrated the politics of ideology and asserted the power of “Vasudhaiv Kutumbkam”. If being soft means being weak then India is neither weak nor soft but if being soft means following the ideologies and values, based on its cultural heritage, then India is not the soft country but the softest country, showing light to the rest part of the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment