Does Norman Angell's Have a Resonance in the Subcontinent?

Norman Angell’s prediction or surmise that commerce and war were antithetical to each other was unfortunately dashed by both the First World War and then the Second Great War. The prelude to the First World War, held to be some as the second wave of globalization was almost idyllic. Trade, capital and people flows were at an historical high and it s held by some that the current Information and Communications Technology(ICT) driven globalization has not yet come near to these flows. However, the trajectory and evolution of Japan into what Richard Rosecrance termed the ‘trading state’ and the post war trajectory of Western Europe’s formation into first an economic and then a political bloc or regime suggests that Angell’s surmise may have something to it.

Informed by the desire to be a normal state, Japanese state under the tutelage of the American alliance focused on sublimating its negative energies and dedicated national energy to commerce and trade.( It has been held by some economists that Japan never conformed to the spirit of free trade but this is besides the point here). This Japanese orientation was informed by what was termed as the Yoshida doctrine. In a similar vein , but under a different permutation and combination, political entrepreneurs and leaders in Europe decided to enmesh their economies into trading patterns that made the respective economies of these state tied and interlocked into each other. The aim was to forestall the orgy of war and conflict that Europe descended into. This approach was informed by the theoretical rubric and paradigm of functionalism, neo functionalism and spill over.

In the late seventies, path breaking and pioneering work done by Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane posited that world politics and economics corresponded to what they termed as ‘complex interdependence’. This went against the gravamen of established international relations like realism and neo realism. Nye and Keohane did not challenge the core premises of these two established theories but propounded that complex interdependence implied that the conventional reasons that states go to war for may not hold. This was because most nations were enmeshed into a complex interdependence paradigm and disturbing this paradigm would be detrimental to the national interests of these states.

Cumulatively or in combination, these developments could be held to be informed by liberalism or the liberal theory of politics. While world politics does not exactly correspond to the tenets of liberalism , aspects of politics in the advanced security communities of the west can be said to conform to its tenets. The state continues to be important actor in world politics and power is the ultima ratio of politics but important developments especially globalization have led to novel features and structural trends in world politics. All in all ,world politics, it would appear , corresponds to a theoretical paradigm that Joseph Nye calls Liberal Realism. That is , both realism and liberalism are inadequate to explain world politics and it is their synthesis that may best explain it.

This formulation may now be holding true in the region that appeared to resist liberal prognostications. That is, the Indian subcontinent. The region defined by the structural rivalry between India and Pakistan-two nuclear armed nation states- has been on the boil since its partition. India and Pakistan have fought three major wars, a mini war that almost became nuclear and a proxy war over Kashmir that continues to linger on.  The security, survival and fortunes of a vast swathe of people in the subcontinent have been held hostage to this rivalry. The rivalry has been so intense that any hopes of peace between the two arch rivals have been held to be ethereal and impossible. However, given the developments since the past week, especially after President Zardari’s visit to India, it would appear that both countries are on the cusp of historical change. The structural rivalry between the two countries appears to be losing its bite to the forces of change imbued by the spirit of commerce and trade.

The decision to allow Pakistan originating FDI in India, allow more trade to take place and above all the Indian decision to talk to Pakistan over Kashmir is an indication of this. All this is to be welcomed. Nothing could be more salubrious for both peace within the region and the wider world than normalization of relations between the two arch rivals. The question is how can this forward momentum be sustained?

First and foremost, the measures mooted by the respective governments should not be allowed to fall victim to either a terrorist outrage or popular moods. They should be crystallized and set in stone. This could be followed by deepening and widening of these reforms and other sectors brought into their ambit. What could be hoped from this is the spill over of economic integration onto the political domain. While hoping this spill over to be along the likes of the EU would be stretch, it would by no means be silly to hope for these conditions to have a salubrious effect on the conlictual relations between India and Pakistan. Enmeshed into deeper, wider and broader patterns of trade , the two countries would develop a stake in each other’s welfare. This could be a potential antidote to war and conflict between the two countries.

The next step would be to open up people to people contacts between the two countries. The hegemonic culture in India shares more than is believed with the hegemonic culture of Pakistan. These intense people to people contacts could potentially make people across the divide realize the commonalities between them and help get rid of mutual stereotypes.

Last but not the least, the two countries should reach a consensual solution over the vexed dispute over Kashmir and again take recourse to the spirit of trade and commerce. One possible solution could be to turn Kashmir into a global city.

  Cumulatively, concerted action on these fronts could lead to a new dawn in the subcontinent. Trade, commerce and business could enmesh the arch rivals and other small states in the region into a pattern of complex interdependence wriggling out of which would redound negatively for these states. Given the depth of animus between India and Pakistan, negative reactions to these initiatives, perhaps in the form of a terrorist outrage can be expected. However, state power and state Will can be more powerful and enduring than the actions of disaffected non state actors. The need of the hour then, on part of strategists and powers that be, across the divide, is to hold firm and tight. Their actions are on the right side of history and a lot is at stake here. These people may not only be making history but also potentially easing the hardships of millions of people.  If these developments attain fruition and efflorescence, it may be that changes pioneered in the advanced democracies may be percolating to this part of the world. And that, Norman Angell, may after all have been ahead of his times and in the final analysis right.