06-18-2004, 04:56 PM
From Pioneer, June 18, 2004.....
Oh, what a lovely Minister!
M N Buch
Lord Cadogan started his career in the British Foreign Service as a regular diplomat and ultimately went on to become the Foreign Secretary (the British equivalent of our External Affairs Minister). Mr K Natwar Singh's career parallels that of Cadogan because he, too, started his service in 1953 as a direct recruit Indian Foreign Service officer, went on to be the Secretary of the Ministry, Minister of State under Rajiv Gandhi and now full-fledged Cabinet Minister for External Affairs in the present Government. I, myself, am a 1957 batch IAS officer and like Mr Natwar Singh we cut our teeth in the heydays of Nehru.
Even today I feel that had Nehru not introduced his brand of planning and state intervention in the economy, we would never have been able to achieve the level of capital formation necessary to provide the infrastructure of a modern state. Just as in the domestic field Nehru left his mark through the planned economy, in the international field Nehru formulated the policy of non-alignment which has hitherto been the cornerstone of India's foreign policy. The Nehruvian world view is the one which Mr Natwar Singh admires and to which he holds.
The world of the 1950s and 1960s, when Nehru was alive, was dominated by the Cold War in which the United States of America and the Soviet Union vied for world domination. All of Western Europe and a great deal of West Asia, together with Japan and Australia, allied with the United States. China went Marxist, but after an initial period of flirtation with the Soviet Union, adopted its own independent way.
So far as the weaker countries of Asia and Africa were concerned, both the United States and the Soviet Union tried to reduce them to puppet states, in which if America dominated Morocco, the Soviet Union had to dominate Algeria. It was a bipolar world in which many countries fell in line with one or the other power bloc.
The dilemma before Nehru was how a country as large as India should behave under these circumstances. He, very wisely, chose not to become a part of either bloc but to chart an independent path of Non-Alignment Movement (NAM) in which India steered a middle course of friendship with both without becoming a part of either. Of course, the American establishment, which was rabidly anti-Soviet, viewed India with grave suspicion because if it was not a part of the Western bloc, it must necessarily be biased in favour of the Eastern. This is the stage at which Pakistan openly sided with America, obtained American financial and military assistance and threatened to upset the balance of power in the subcontinent.
It is to the Soviet Union's credit that it built a strong strategic partnership with India despite the fact that we were non-aligned and did not approve of everything that the Soviet Union did. For example, we were critical of the invasion of Hungary by the Soviet Union.
A planned economy and a non-aligned foreign policy perhaps prevented the Indian economy from achieving the growth rates of countries such as South Korea, Taiwan or Singapore. But it did keep us out of the dirty politics of the Cold War and enabled us to create our own paradigm of development.
<b>The world of Nehru and the world of 2004 are very different creatures indeed. There is no Cold War, Russia stands emaciated to the point of being almost a second rate power, the Eastern Bloc countries of Europe have joined the European Union, the European Union itself is emerging as a powerful economic force and militarily the United States stands unchallenged. The choice now is not of non-alignment as between blocs but one of either becoming an American vassal or becoming economically strong so that, like China, in the world of diplomacy India can adopt an independent stance backed by real domestic strength.
This is not a situation which is amenable to Nehruvian solutions which were relevant during the Cold War period. This is the time for foreign policy to be oriented towards and made subordinate to a strong national will and effort to develop the economy to a stage where as a market, as a focal point of investment and a trading partner, India becomes so strong that the United States and other countries of the world treat us with respect.</b>
The present Government came to power less than a month ago. During this period, Mr Laloo Prasad Yadav notwithstanding, <b>Mr Natwar Singh is the Minister most heard because he will not stop pontificating about how his foreign policy will be based on Nehruvian policy.
This is almost like saying that the foreign policy of Britain during the Napoleonic Wars would be based on the foreign policy during the Thirty Years War. Every national policy has validity in the context of its milieu. Nehru's policy was valid then. Much of it is valid today as it keeps us independent of the sole super-power, but the name of Nehru cannot be taken like that of a Messiah, nor his policy be adopted as the Gospel. I wish Mr Natwar Singh would understand this.</b>
Then we have our relations with Pakistan about which Mr Singh has repeated ad nauseam that it is the Simla Agreement which will be the basis of our inter-relationship. The Simla Agreement dates back to a time of more than 32 years ago when Pakistan lay prostrate before us. No Pakistani likes to be reminded about that accord today because it brings to mind the shame of the surrender at Dhaka. <b>What is valid about that accord is that all discussions and agreements between India and Pakistan will be on a purely bilateral basis with no third party intervention.
We must stick to this regardless of what the Pakistanis feel about it and we must resist every attempt by the United States, Britain and other Western countries to try and influence the discussions. However, so far as the actual talks on our future relationship with Pakistan is concerned, we have to move beyond the Simla Agreement and work out the new parametres of discussion in the context of the situation today. Mr Singh must both stop living in the past and constantly reiterating his faith in it.</b>
In a recent interview to The Week, Mr Singh is alleged to have said that the American lobby considers him a hawk. What precisely does he mean? I am not a great fan of the United States and I feel that what it has done in Iraq is inexcusable and will remain so till doomsday. That, however, does not mean that the Indian External Affairs Minister should be described as, or describes himself as, a hawk or a dove. <b>He is a member of the Indian Cabinet, with India's interests being paramount, and he must deal with the United States or any other foreign country on merit, and according to what suits India best.</b>
I know that Mr Singh has come into the limelight as a Minister after a long gap. Would it hurt him to refrain from imposing his personal views and opinions on us innocent Indians for the next six months and instead buckle down to the job assigned to him? In other words, to quote Sanjay Gandhi (another person whose fan I was not), "Baatein kum, kam zyada", or "Talk less, work more".
Oh, what a lovely Minister!
M N Buch
Lord Cadogan started his career in the British Foreign Service as a regular diplomat and ultimately went on to become the Foreign Secretary (the British equivalent of our External Affairs Minister). Mr K Natwar Singh's career parallels that of Cadogan because he, too, started his service in 1953 as a direct recruit Indian Foreign Service officer, went on to be the Secretary of the Ministry, Minister of State under Rajiv Gandhi and now full-fledged Cabinet Minister for External Affairs in the present Government. I, myself, am a 1957 batch IAS officer and like Mr Natwar Singh we cut our teeth in the heydays of Nehru.
Even today I feel that had Nehru not introduced his brand of planning and state intervention in the economy, we would never have been able to achieve the level of capital formation necessary to provide the infrastructure of a modern state. Just as in the domestic field Nehru left his mark through the planned economy, in the international field Nehru formulated the policy of non-alignment which has hitherto been the cornerstone of India's foreign policy. The Nehruvian world view is the one which Mr Natwar Singh admires and to which he holds.
The world of the 1950s and 1960s, when Nehru was alive, was dominated by the Cold War in which the United States of America and the Soviet Union vied for world domination. All of Western Europe and a great deal of West Asia, together with Japan and Australia, allied with the United States. China went Marxist, but after an initial period of flirtation with the Soviet Union, adopted its own independent way.
So far as the weaker countries of Asia and Africa were concerned, both the United States and the Soviet Union tried to reduce them to puppet states, in which if America dominated Morocco, the Soviet Union had to dominate Algeria. It was a bipolar world in which many countries fell in line with one or the other power bloc.
The dilemma before Nehru was how a country as large as India should behave under these circumstances. He, very wisely, chose not to become a part of either bloc but to chart an independent path of Non-Alignment Movement (NAM) in which India steered a middle course of friendship with both without becoming a part of either. Of course, the American establishment, which was rabidly anti-Soviet, viewed India with grave suspicion because if it was not a part of the Western bloc, it must necessarily be biased in favour of the Eastern. This is the stage at which Pakistan openly sided with America, obtained American financial and military assistance and threatened to upset the balance of power in the subcontinent.
It is to the Soviet Union's credit that it built a strong strategic partnership with India despite the fact that we were non-aligned and did not approve of everything that the Soviet Union did. For example, we were critical of the invasion of Hungary by the Soviet Union.
A planned economy and a non-aligned foreign policy perhaps prevented the Indian economy from achieving the growth rates of countries such as South Korea, Taiwan or Singapore. But it did keep us out of the dirty politics of the Cold War and enabled us to create our own paradigm of development.
<b>The world of Nehru and the world of 2004 are very different creatures indeed. There is no Cold War, Russia stands emaciated to the point of being almost a second rate power, the Eastern Bloc countries of Europe have joined the European Union, the European Union itself is emerging as a powerful economic force and militarily the United States stands unchallenged. The choice now is not of non-alignment as between blocs but one of either becoming an American vassal or becoming economically strong so that, like China, in the world of diplomacy India can adopt an independent stance backed by real domestic strength.
This is not a situation which is amenable to Nehruvian solutions which were relevant during the Cold War period. This is the time for foreign policy to be oriented towards and made subordinate to a strong national will and effort to develop the economy to a stage where as a market, as a focal point of investment and a trading partner, India becomes so strong that the United States and other countries of the world treat us with respect.</b>
The present Government came to power less than a month ago. During this period, Mr Laloo Prasad Yadav notwithstanding, <b>Mr Natwar Singh is the Minister most heard because he will not stop pontificating about how his foreign policy will be based on Nehruvian policy.
This is almost like saying that the foreign policy of Britain during the Napoleonic Wars would be based on the foreign policy during the Thirty Years War. Every national policy has validity in the context of its milieu. Nehru's policy was valid then. Much of it is valid today as it keeps us independent of the sole super-power, but the name of Nehru cannot be taken like that of a Messiah, nor his policy be adopted as the Gospel. I wish Mr Natwar Singh would understand this.</b>
Then we have our relations with Pakistan about which Mr Singh has repeated ad nauseam that it is the Simla Agreement which will be the basis of our inter-relationship. The Simla Agreement dates back to a time of more than 32 years ago when Pakistan lay prostrate before us. No Pakistani likes to be reminded about that accord today because it brings to mind the shame of the surrender at Dhaka. <b>What is valid about that accord is that all discussions and agreements between India and Pakistan will be on a purely bilateral basis with no third party intervention.
We must stick to this regardless of what the Pakistanis feel about it and we must resist every attempt by the United States, Britain and other Western countries to try and influence the discussions. However, so far as the actual talks on our future relationship with Pakistan is concerned, we have to move beyond the Simla Agreement and work out the new parametres of discussion in the context of the situation today. Mr Singh must both stop living in the past and constantly reiterating his faith in it.</b>
In a recent interview to The Week, Mr Singh is alleged to have said that the American lobby considers him a hawk. What precisely does he mean? I am not a great fan of the United States and I feel that what it has done in Iraq is inexcusable and will remain so till doomsday. That, however, does not mean that the Indian External Affairs Minister should be described as, or describes himself as, a hawk or a dove. <b>He is a member of the Indian Cabinet, with India's interests being paramount, and he must deal with the United States or any other foreign country on merit, and according to what suits India best.</b>
I know that Mr Singh has come into the limelight as a Minister after a long gap. Would it hurt him to refrain from imposing his personal views and opinions on us innocent Indians for the next six months and instead buckle down to the job assigned to him? In other words, to quote Sanjay Gandhi (another person whose fan I was not), "Baatein kum, kam zyada", or "Talk less, work more".