Tepid Formulations, Tame Conclusions

Tepid Formulations, Tame Conclusions

Shashi Tharoor's book on foreign policy treads old ground.

Foreign policy has not been a popular subject in India – even among the intelligentsia – till recently. Even those engaged with the strategic and diplomatic aspects of foreign policy – economic aspects are largely ignored – are unsure about what India ought to be doing or saying. Many of them consider themselves to be realists in the realpolitik sense and think that India should adopt whatever policy benefits the country. There was a time in the early part of this century when experts argued against the United Nations, saying policy should be pursued outside its inane ambit. At the same time others argued for UN reforms and permanent membership of the UN Security Council for India. There are some who advocate a conciliatory attitude towards Pakistan and a tough stance against China, arguing this would position India better with the still- influential First World of Europe and the United States. Others think the opposite. The state of foreign policy debate in India is deliriously confusing.

This confusion however does not prevent members of the intelligentsia from talking with remarkable confidence about issues on which the facts are not fully known. An example is the talk on how Jawarharlal Nehru failed on the Chinese front and bungled his Kashmir policy. Nehru is blamed for allowing thousands of miles of territory to be occupied by the sharp Communist rulers in Beijing and for a part of Jammu and Kashmir falling into Pakistani occupation Azad Kashmir / Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) / Pakistan-administered-Kashmir (PAK) following the first India-Pakistan war of 1948. Nehru is also squarely blamed for losing the 1962 war with China. This is a view popular at street-corners and in coffee houses, in drawing rooms as well as with right-wing political circles. Informed academic debates do not allow for this kind of a popular view because of the complexity of the situation and the fact that the full facts are still-to-be unearthed from archives in New Delhi, Islamabad, London, Washington and Moscow.

There is also the rosy view that India under Nehru was a world leader because of its idealistic and moralist non-aligned approach that was looked up to. This view argues that the lofty stance was sacrificed at the altar of economic reforms which were ushered in 1991, consequently making India a pygmy on the international stage despite impressive economic performance. There is also the pungent criticism – especially from the Left, (including the Indian Communist parties) – that says India is now a meek camp follower of the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), and that in diplomatic, strategic and economic spheres New Delhi is toeing the Washington line.

There have been book-length arguments in the last 20 years, quite a few of them from Indians working in the American universities and think-tanks. But they focus largely on specific aspects of India's relations. There have been a couple of books on India-US relations, books on India's nuclear policy and its strategic implications, books with contributions from Indian and Pakistani scholars and policy-makers about bilateral relations, sometimes focused on a specific topic like the Shimla Agreement of 1972. There have been a quite a few from Indian and foreign journalists about India and China as emerging economic powerhouses but not much has been written on the  foreign policies of the two countries which should make a fascinating study in itself. Despite considerable publishing in this sphere, there have been no book-length discussions about Indian foreign policy in its entirety.

The Americans have a lively tradition of arguing and agonising over United States' role in the world, a subject that excites a limited group of scholars and policymakers. Hundreds of big and small books have been written about America's foreign policy. Shashi Tharoor's book Pax Indica is written in the American tradition on Indian foreign policy. 

Tharoor is qualified to write on the subject having been an international relations scholar. His doctoral dissertation from the well-known Fletcher School of Diplomacy was on Indian foreign policy structures in the 1970s. The book that emerged from this, Tharoor's first, was Reasons of State and like a good PhD student, Tharoor employed the dominant theoretical presumptions of behaviouralism and structuralism of the time. But he moved away from academics, joined the United Nations, nursed his literary flair and wrote interesting novels. More recently he entered politics, joined the Congress party, was elected a member of the Parliament and had a short-lived appointment as Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.  It is after 30 years that he returns to writing about international relations.

<em>Pax Indica: India and the World of the 21st Century</em><br /><em>By Shashi Tharoor</em><br /><em>Penguin 2012</em>
Pax Indica: India and the World of the 21st Century
By Shashi Tharoor
Penguin 2012

Tharoor still retains the critical eye of the scholar for detail but Pax Indica is a book written from the perspective of an active politician, though in the acknowledgements he asserts that "the opinions expressed in this book are strictly personal and engage neither Government of India, nor the political party of which I am a member…" In fact it is interesting that he uses 'opinions' instead of 'views' to describe his own contribution considering he is someone who knows more than a little about issues of diplomacy. This suggests a tentativeness that is not borne out in the book which is quite forceful and even persuasive.

For example, of India-Pakistan Track II diplomacy, Tharoor writes: "The problem with Indo-Pak Track-II dialogues of the kind I witnessed in the capital is that they are essentially built on denial…they are a self-fulfilling exercise in self-vindication. Their success depends on denying the very disagreements that makes such dialogues necessary in the first place." The chapter from which this has been cited is titled 'Brother Enemy' and it deals with India-Pakistan relations in a very interesting anecdotal manner. However despite this forcefulness of tone, Tharoor often chooses to take an easy way out rather than make a scholarly critique, stating known positions through a popular narrative. He uses the 26/11 terror attack in Mumbai, the killing of liberal Pakistan Punjab governor Salman Taseer and the newspaper articles that appeared in its wake on both sides to make his point. He ends on an inevitable platitudinous note that Pakistan has to do its bit to improve relations with India. He does not explore the Pakistan-US and Pakistan-China axes that tempt Pakistan to remain intransigent in its relations towards India. The chapter appears more of an MP's rhetorical flourish in a parliamentary debate on India and Pakistan.

Loading content, please wait...
Himal Southasian
www.himalmag.com