By Aparna Pande
This article appeared on Indolink
The Non alignment policy of India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, is viewed critically by hawks and right wing elements of the Indian policy elite. Nehru is seem as attempting to ‘idealistically craft a Third World bloc’ and ‘revel in occupying center-stage of global politics with ‘high flown idealistic moral posturing’ all of which according to these critics failed and forced India to adopt double standards. The conclusion of these hawks is that the end of the Cold War taught Indian policy makers the crucial lesson that only realpolitik and realism work in this anarchic Hobbesian world.
India’s acceptance as an emerging global power and the growing ties – military, economic and political – with various major powers is seen as a result of this shift towards realism. It was only after India ‘discarded its archaic concept of Non Alignment’ that India started ‘moving towards its rightful future.’ Thus all of India’s losses in the previous decades are laid at the door of Non Alignment.
It is said that in the field of national security India suffered because threat perceptions and defense preparedness were not given a priority. India’s 1962 debacle in the war with China is cited as an example. Non Alignment is claimed to have limited India’s political and diplomatic prestige and influence to only the militarily powerless Non-aligned countries.
Economically, non alignment is said to have prevented India from becoming a fully globalized economy and hence benefiting from foreign investment much earlier than it actually did. The socialist basis of Indian economy is blamed for the ‘Hindu rate of growth’ and the problems in poverty alleviation.
For right wing ideologues India’s Nehruvian ‘moralistic nuclear policy’ not only paid no dividends to India but prevented India from catapulting into the Big League much earlier.
Thus Non alignment is seen by the hawks as a foreign policy failure.
They say hindsight is twenty-twenty and thus pointing out the failures of Nehruvian foreign policy is very easy. Let us analyze Non Alignment in the light of these critiques.
There is no doubt that Nehru made mistakes in his China policy; his naiveté led him to believe that India and China were and would always remain friends and he ignored factors of realpolitik and Chinese national interest. However, it was not Non- Alignment which led to these losses. Rather Non-alignment ensured that countries around the world, including the United States and Soviet Union, would help India once it had problems with China.
India, under Nehru, remained in the Commonwealth after Independence, but did not accept the British monarch as the head of state, unlike countries like Canada and Australia. This was unbelievable prior to 1947 and was seen as a special concession that Britain made in order to ensure that its ties to its former colony remained intact.
Non Alignment did not lead to a decline in India’s global political influence. India maintained relations with both the power blocs during the Cold War while staying clear of both. It tried to follow an issue-based policy though India did veer towards the Soviet Union under Indira Gandhi.
A slow decline in India’s global influence was the result of a combination of factors: the death of Nehru (even though Indira Gandhi did try to fill his shoes); increasing tensions between the two blocs in the Cold War leading to a squeeze on any country which was not in either bloc; India’s slow economic growth and the continued conflict with Pakistan which kept India pre-occupied and tied to the subcontinent.
India’s political influence was not limited to the NAM countries. Jawaharlal Nehru started the tradition which was continued by his successors of building ties with other countries around the world, especially those with which India had long historical and cultural ties – like countries of the Middle East, South East Asia and Africa and not just Europe and Great Britain.
India’s move towards Fabian Socialism and a planned economy was linked to Non Alignment but was not either its cause or the factor. The main reason was Nehru’s desire for economic autarky and independence. Yes, India suffered a lot and had slow growth during the 1960s-70s but the result of Nehru’s economic policies is a strong industrial base. For example, India never allowed Coca Cola to enter the Indian market or any foreign motor car manufacturer to set up shop. The result was the growth of local cola drinks like Thums Up and the ability to manufacture cars in India.
The ‘Hindu rate of growth’ and its concomitant impacts can be laid at the door of the Indian government’s socialist ideology and the bureaucracy which just remained in colonial mode not sympathetic to or aware of the changed requirements of an independent nation. Non alignment had nothing to do with this economic policy.
Power and influence in the world is not just based on hard power – military and political – but also on economic influence and soft power. The recent Indo-US nuclear deal and the talk about ‘emerging India’ are not due to just ‘India’s nuclear status’ – rather they reflect the open acknowledgement by most countries of India’s diplomatic, economic and soft power clout. Bollywood, Chicken Tikka Masala and Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) are examples of India’s soft power just to name a few.
Like any other policy, Non Alignment, was useful at a time when the world was divided into blocs and Indian policy makers were interested in building the fragile new country. But every policy loses its usefulness if it is practiced beyond a certain period of time. Non Alignment most likely reached its natural end date.