India's Foreign Policy in the 21st Century: Pax Indica, Incredible India or Credible India?

The end of the Cold War that roughly coincided with India’s rather serendipitous opening up to the world has been salubrious for India. The country is now taken seriously in the halls of power. It is not (barring some hiccups) only seen as an investment destination but its range of power and capabilities are now widely appreciated. It appears that India is finally making its ‘tryst with destiny’- a phrase and slogan that rang hollow and was rather vacuous when India achieved its independence. While the pithy branding exercise that goes under the rubric of ‘Incredible India’ is somewhat ironical given the paradox that is India, it does not detract from the fact that India is well on the path of becoming a power to reckon with.

This raises a set of salient questions: what is India to do with this new found power and status? Is this power and status real? And what should India’s outward orientation and the nature of its foreign policy be in the 21^st century?

 Before dwelling on these questions, it may be pertinent to make a digression.Numerous commentators, pundits and analysts-ranging from smitten and irredeemable Indophiles to sober commentators and critics- have written tomes on India’s potential and it’s current. Most of this surge in commentary and analysis about/over India is unrealistic and glosses over the real and existing India and is meant as lip gloss to make India palatable to the western eye and ear. However, analysts and doyens like Stephen Cohen, able diplomats like David Malone (who goes native in his tome on Indian foreign policy) and the former UN official turned politician, Shashi Tharoor’s analyses offer a reasonably sober portrait and picture of India and its foreign policy orientation.

The consensus and the distilled essence of the works of these doyens is that India is and has changed. And that this is reflected in the respective domains of culture, identity and politics. Inevitably and naturally, these changes are having an impact on India’s outward orientation and foreign policy. India , in the words of one prominent scholar, Rajmohan Roy, has ‘crossed the Rubicon’ and if the analyses and recommendations offered by Dr. Tharoor are taken seriously and implemented , India may morph into ‘Pax Indica’- an entity that is ‘multi aligned’ and radiates influence through a prudent admixture of ‘soft’ and hard power.

Most analysts take their starting point India’s policy of non alignment wherein India disavowed power politics and did not take sides in the structural bipolarity that came to be known as the Cold War. They aver that non alignment was a bit of a sham and did not serve India well. And profound structural changes in the international system and structure and the global economy have entailed a paradigm shift in India’s power, capabilities and orientation. India then is on the cusp of momentous change and should grasp the opportunity that the current confluence of conditions. What does this mean? Does this imply and mean regional hegemony and the intermeshing of India’s neighborhood into the ‘complex interdependence’ paradigm with India at its apex? Or being a partner of ally of the United States in the evolving and fluid international system and structure? Or does this mean holding onto what has been called ‘strategic autonomy’ and maintaining a bit of a distance between the US and India? Or should India, to quote Dr. Tharoor, mean multi alignment in a networked world?

Radiating influence and projecting power is the concomitant of power and capabilities. This is an axiom or even a law of international relations and politics. So if India has finally emerged and is becoming a player in its own league, it will naturally project its power onto the states comprising its neighborhood. As much as Dr. Tharoor may try to gloss over this and offer a palliative analyses and projection, this will not detract from the fact that India will inevitably become a regional hegemon. Thucydides reminds us that rising powers inevitably raise suspicion and paranoia among smaller states. This development is then potentially alarming for India’s neighboring states. They can respond by either balancing or soft balancing. The question is how can India assuage their fears and pre-empt this outcome. This can be done not by glibness or smooth words but by assuring the lesser powers that the nature of India’s hegemony will be benign and then enmeshing the economies of these states into a complex interdependence paradigm. This may be most prudent given that a rough balance of power globally with regional hegemons propping up a world order may ensure peace and stability than the obverse. This is  insofar as, India’s near abroad is concerned. What about India’s global orientation especially its relations with the sole superpower, the United States?

The United State’s is and will remain peerless as far as the eye can see and it appears to be forging a policy paradigm which factors in the structural changes that are occurring in world politics. In this policy formulation, the United States appears to be reaching out to democracies like India and making them into partners or even allies. This is a historic opportunity that India should grasp. India should, normatively speaking, ‘warm up’ to the United States and even enter into a full fledged alliance with that United States –the kind that corresponds to a league of or Concert of democracies. This should be done while maintaining strategic autonomy and at the same time, India should make it clear to the United States that the country would not be the United State’s ‘deputy sheriff’ in the region. This means that India should have a large room for maneuver in its dealings with China and Iran.

The state, in spite of the transformations wrought on it by globalization is the fundamental unit of the international system and structure. Notwithstanding the prognostications of the state’s demise and the eminent, AnnMarie Slaughter’s conception of a networked world, the international system is comprised of discrete units called states. In this world of states, it is national interest that reigns supreme. Alliances, partnerships, and raison d’etat forms the grist and mill of this state centric world.  For India, this means that it have a clear cut and not a dreamy eyed approach to world politics. In essence, the country’s orientation should be realist sprinkled  with a dose of liberalism. This liberal realist approach would serve India well and may correspond to its purported nature: a liberal democratic nation. In this scheme, ‘multi alignment’ means no alignment or an approach that is ad hoc and surreal.

The challenges that the 21^st century brings with it are rare and unique. These require co-operation with other states on/at a range of levels. Multilateralism and issue linkages are the name of the game here. At the same time, India should understand that state interest of national interest is paramount. Given the nature of transnational problems, this may mean tweaking national interest a bit and incorporating these into India’s ‘grand strategy. This grand strategy should be informed by the principles and tenets of realism and liberalism. It is this synthesis that will serve India well and enable it to morph into a responsible power. The alternatives-mushy and dreamy eyed formulations- will merely confuse and befuddle. It is about time that India introspects and incorporates realism and liberalism into its foreign policy.  Pax Indica can wait. Let the inflated ‘Incredible India’ formulation give way to credible and sober India.