Indian Foreign Policy Under Modi

Introduction

    Prime Minister Narendra Modi has interacted with the leaders of four of the five countries/regions on the list of foreign policy priorities mentioned in the President’s address to the opening session of Parliament (SAARC, China, Japan, Russia, USA). He has also met leaders from several other countries. It is therefore an appropriate time to take stock.  In this note we focus on two questions: One, what are the underlying changes in the directions of India’s Foreign policy.  In other words, is PM Modi’s Foreign Policy likely to differ from that of Soni-Man Mohan Government‘s?  Two, what were the objectives of PM Modi’s foreign policy actions in first four months, to what extent have they been achieved and what remains to be done?  

Directional Change

     Every country’s foreign policy has, after a change of government, elements of continuity and change.  India under a Modi led BJP-NDA government is no different. What are these changes in direction and emphasis? These changes have not been explicitly articulated by the new government, but are implicit in their pragmatic actions and “view of the world.” There are five areas in which I see an emerging change in foreign policy: The centrality of economic & technological development, the integrations of domestic and foreign policy with respect to this objective, the emphasis on “national power” including “military power” and “Soft power” and a reduction in self-imposed constraints on actions that third counties may construe as inimical to their interests.

Economic Objectives

    The first change in foreign policy is a much greater attention to economic objectives. This is not merely a reiteration of the economic development objective that has been India’s mantra since independence, but a  recognition of the role of “technology” (broadly defined) in all aspects of economic development & economic power. This involves an implicit benchmarking of the technological capabilities of the Indian economy with respect to the global best practices and/or global technology frontier, a perception of large gaps across much of the economy and the goal of bridging these gaps through domestic and foreign economic policy.  How this is different from earlier regimes is reflected in two policy initiatives: The “Swach Bharat” campaign which doesn’t involve “high technology” but does reflect a huge gap in sanitation systems and practices between India and the developed countries and will require innovative technological, managerial, social and public solutions. The second is the “Digital India” campaign, which recognizes the gap between India and digitization frontier, but treats it as an opportunity to solve problems of governance and corruption as well as its innovative use for health education & training needs of a population four times the size of the largest developed country (leap frogging). It is probably the first time that an Indian PM elucidated India’s economic & technological objective abroad(“India First”),  identified  the specific role that each country could play in achieving these objective and made that the center piece of the discussion with that country!

Foreign-Domestic Policy Integration

    The second change is a much greater alignment of foreign policy with domestic objectives.  Though the talk about integrating national economic policies and foreign policies started in the 1990s, this has only been episodically reflected in domestic or foreign policy.  The Indian Prime Minister mentioned both the programs (“Swach Bharat”, Digital India/smart cities) in his public statements in the USA & Japan. In his meetings with leaders of advanced countries, he has been very explicit about Indian objectives with respect to economic development and technological catch up and in exploring how these countries can help India close these gaps. The message to all inside and outside the government is quite clear: Both domestic and international policy can/must/will be used to close the economic and technological gap with more advanced countries across the entire spectrum from basic sanitation to defense vehicles, aircraft & ships to the frontiers of cyber space & outer space.

  “India First” means that what India needs/wants from each economic & technology power will be expressed with greater clarity & specificity and these counties have to respond in the way think appropriate. India’s decisions will then be based on comparative benefit-cost ratio of dealing with different countries on a defined set of issues, not on philosophical and/or ideological consideration of (non-) alignment.

National Power

      The third change is a greater emphasis on overall national power, with a more realistic assessment of the appropriate role of military power. Economic power is the foundation of national power, but above it must be a solid block of military-strategic power, topped by a smaller cone of “soft power”.[i]  The Modi govt. has a clearer appreciation that economic power/economic relations cannot be a substitute for military power/international security relationships, in deterring the aggressive designs of ideologically driven foes. On the contrary economic concessions may be viewed by militaristic ideologues as a sign of weakness to be exploited and economic assistance as an expression of superiority to be resented. Economic relations can complement international security relationships by influencing the behavior of non-ideological, economically rational players in the global system,[ii] but only military strength can deter militaristic ideologues and ensure peace.

Unconventional Threats

      Operationally this has several implications. One is the increased focus on unconventional threats (cross-border terrorism, use of non-state actors, foreign ideologues-mercenaries). This requires a buildup of World class equipment and skills over a much wider spectrum of warfare & covert capabilities  and a willingness to boldly attack the aggressor in his safe havens. This is (in my judgment) already in the process of change, both in terms of capabilities in counter-terrorism and defense against non-state actors, but even more importantly in doctrines incorporating a willingness to take calculated risks in using asymmetric capabilities.  

     Deterrence is however only effective, if the adversary using these tactics is convinced that the new government will respond to asymmetric warfare with appropriate actions across a much broader menu of conventional & unconventional options.  As the diplomatic signals sent to our Western neighbor (e.g. through track 2 dialogues and cancellation of Secretary level talks) did not seem to be heard & understood by its “deep state”, it became necessary to signal the seriousness of the change in overall strategy, through a heightened (conventional) response to border firing/cease fire violations.[iii] Similarly unconventional psychological warfare & “creeping annexation” tactics on the northern border are being countered by bold new plans (e.g. the ‘McMohan highway’ along the LAC in Arunachal) that have both a conventional defensive and a signaling component.

Defense Production Capability

The second implication is a much greater focus on national capability to produce a broad range of defense equipment in India (though actual production of any specific item will be influenced by financial benefit-cost). “Self-sufficiency” has been a slogan from the days of “Nehruvian Socialism,” as it played second fiddle to the ideological goal of preserving a Public sector monopoly over the means of (defense) production and discouraging foreign participation in Indian JVs.  This defense public sector veto over use of private domestic & foreign capabilities for defense production within India is being decisively broken by the new government, to give primacy to defense self-sufficiency. The ability and willingness to transfer technology and help build skills & research capabilities at lower cost, will consequently play a much more important role in relations with Japan, Russia, USA and EU countries.  The reinvigorated approach to national security is likely to manifest itself in a reversal (over the next five years) of the trend decline in ratio of defense expenditures to GDP (since the BOP crises of 1991).

Soft Power

   The fourth change is a greater emphasis on global socio-politics and “soft power”, the third dimension of national power.  This includes the expansion of common ground based on religious and cultural heritage & history of India (e.g. Hinduism viz. Nepal, Buddhism viz. E & SE Asia, Yoga viz. West, modern Islam viz Indonesia, democracy viz Australia, Canada), as well as the Indian diaspora across the World. PM Modi’s speech to the Indian diaspora in New York, USA, was a very successful attempt to inspire the diaspora to contribute to the economic & technological development of India, either directly or indirectly through political participation in their country of citizenship.

Confident Pragmatism

   The fifth change is a freeing up of self-imposed, historical and mental, constraints on developing the full potential of economic or security relations with any country.  Thus India’s economic relationships with potential adversaries can be pursued relatively independently from the security relationship, without one constraining the other or being completely parallel.  This is most clearly apparent from the meetings PM Modi held with President Xi Jinping of China, the economic agreements reached and the formation of the BRICs Bank and AIB (Asian Infrastructure Bank). Further neither the economic nor the security relationship with one country (friend or foe) will constrain the economic or security relationship with any other country (e.g. economic & security co-operation with Japan).  Both will be evaluated in terms of India’s primary objectives of closing the economic and technological gap and building national power, in a pragmatic forward looking manner jettisoning ideological blinkers and minimizing historical baggage.

India Back On World Stage

     Short Term/Immediate goals of PM Modi’s foreign policy initiatives from the day he took the oath of office seemed to be three (partly) overlapping ones:  One goal was to establish Mr Modi’s credentials as a National and International leader.  During the general election campaign most political analysts had predicted that Shri Modi, a State leader with no Central govt experience, wouldn’t be able to rise above his regional origins and limitations.  Mr. Modi wanted to lay this specter to rest quickly & decisively so he could focus on achieving his development objectives.  The second goal was to put India back on the global stage, from which it had fallen off during the last 3-4 years, according to all objective analysts and observers. In this he was backed/supported by advise from virtually all international relations experts inside & outside the government.  In this process he also wanted to convey to the World, the change in foreign-domestic policy emphasis of his government along the lines elucidated above.  The dramatic outreach to SAARC countries, the meetings with leaders of Japan, China and USA, and a flurry of meetings with other countries (eg Australia, UK, France), complemented by a number of foreign trips by the President and the EAM, have achieved both these goals.

Confidence and Trust (B2G)

    The third goal was to re-establish international investor confidence in Indian economy and polity.  The results of the general election, in which the BJP and its allies won a decisive majority in the Lok Sabha, had already opened the flood gates of capital inflows into India, before Shri Modi was sworn in as Prime Minister.  However, this expression of confidence by foreign finance capital, had not been reflected in a similar increase in gross fixed capital formation (GFCF).  It was therefore felt necessary to communicate directly with the largest foreign direct investors (FDI). The PMs goal was to gain their trust & understanding of his seriousness in reversing the effects of obstructive policies & procedures that resulted in the collapse in growth of GFCF and removing bottlenecks in investment in infrastructure, manufacturing etc.  The US private sector is the most important source of technology and foreign investment across a broad spectrum of industries. The PM was largely successful in establishing trust. However, given that foreign direct investment usually follows domestic investment and both were waiting to see action on certain known policy & regulatory problems, full restoration awaits action on the domestic policy & regulatory front. Now that two important State elections are over and the government has re-started the reform process, we will soon be able to judge whether enough has been done to revive GFCF from the second half of 2014-15. I expect the legacy problems for foreign private sector operations (B2G) and general bottlenecks facing all direct investment (domestic & foreign) in India to be sorted out within a year, restoring a flourishing Business to Business (B2B) relationship.

Strategic Partnership

     The US is still the sole super power and likely to remain so for at least a decade and stands head and shoulders above others in the depth and breadth of strategic and defense technology.  Thus Indo-US relations have a special salience and it was particularly important to restore them to the level before the global financial crisis and the series of policy missteps since then. It was therefore important for PM Modi to convey the changes in the new Govt.’s approach to foreign policy and for US President to understand these at first hand. 

Geo-economic Constraints

        Despite the considerable overlap in the long term strategic interests of US and India in Asia, it is unclear how quickly a genuine strategic partnership will develop given the inherent differences in economic perspective between a rich global power and a poor regional one.  The USA, like many rich countries is a net exporter of technology with high per capita but low incremental pollution while India is a net technology importer with low per capita but high incremental pollution.  These differences need to be recognized and dealt with objectively & fairly.[iv] There is also a conflict of interest between the profitable capital-intensive, export competitive US agriculture sector and India’s labor-intensive, low productivity, subsistence agriculture with 66% of population dependent on it. These gaps will narrow over the next decade or so, along with the gap in per capita income.  In the meanwhile, a pragmatic approach is needed to resolve these differences and/or minimize the negative fallout of unresolved differences. There are indications in the joint statement, of the beginning of such an approach. 

Strategic Opportunities

     There are also some differences arising from the historical interests, commitments and actions of a long term “Super Power,” and an India two decades from becoming a “Great Power,” whose regional security suffers collateral damage from Super powered actions.[v]  However, the reasonably high convergence of interests on Terrorism and on maritime security in the Indian Ocean and Indo-Pacific, can form the core of a strategic understanding, while pragmatically allowing for greater differentiation in the respective approaches to individual countries in West Asia.[vi]  The outcome of PM Modi’s discussions with President Obama appears to be a deeper understanding on and heightened co-operation in, counter-terrorism (safe havens, “financial and tactical support for networks such as Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, the D-Company, and  Haqqanis”).  There are also hints of enhanced cooperation in Defense procurement, production and technology development and on Maritime Security in the Indian Ocean and Indo-Pacific Region. The former includes (a) An extension of the Framework for US-India Defense Relationship(2005) and a Reinvigoration & expansion of Political-Military Dialogue. (b)The setting up of Task Force under Defense Trade & Technology Initiative, whose first meeting was in Sept 2014, to decide on specific projects & technologies. Maritime security is to be enhanced through likely technology transfers to the Indian Navy (e.g. the magnetic catapult for Indian aircraft carrier) and an expansion of Malabar exercises. Thus the outlook for further development of Indo-US strategic partnership is cautiously optimistic at this point.

Conclusion

    The PM Modi led Indian government is changing the emphasis of India’s Foreign and National security policies. Elements of this change in approach are already visible. These involve a clearer definition of Indian interests (“India First”) in terms of economic and technological development, a greater focus on these goals in foreign policy and a consequent integration of domestic and foreign policies. Other changes involve a greater focus on development of national power, in particular an enhancement of the somewhat neglected element of military power, its broader definition to include asymmetric warfare of which State financed-directed non-state actors are a dangerous part, and a jettisoning of self-imposed constraints of ideology and misplaced fear of offending other countries who display no such squeamishness in their behavior.[vii]   Overall a much more confident, credible and effective national security-foreign policy is predicted to emerge over the next five years.

-------------------

A shorter version of this article appeared  on the Op Ed page of The Hindu, on 1^st November, 2014 under the banner, “Recalibrating India’s Foreign Policy “, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-recalibrating-indias-foreign-policy/article6553306.ece .

---

[i] Please see papers at https://sites.google.com/site/drarvindvirmani/india-great-power .

[ii] The economic collapse of the USSR and changes in China’s behavior after the global financial crisis, are instructive in this regard. China shifted from export-investment led growth to aggressive geo-economic (IPR, espionage) & geopolitical behavior (Arunachal. E & S China Seas).

[iii] Cross-border terrorism in J&K (as measured by no of deaths) increased from 1993 to 2001 and declined after 9/11 because of the deal reached between US-Pakistan. In response Pakistan changed its Jehadi tactics by using Nepal as a conduit and Bangladesh as a base for terrorism. It also gradually started recruiting and training Indian Muslims as terrorists(IM).

[iv] A (national) patent is a monopoly right conferred on the inventor in the interests of the nation as a whole. Thus, for instance, the optimal length of the patent is likely to be shorter in a poor country than in a rich country. A bilateral/multilateral agreement has to be a compromise between the rich country/countries and the poor country/countries. There is no inherently right length!

[v]  Please see papers at https://sites.google.com/site/drarvindvirmani/india-great-power

[vi] US analysts should remember that in the US scheme of geographical divisions, India is included in the “Pacific command(USPACOM)” and not in the “Central Command (USCENTCOM)” covering West and Central Asia.

[vii]  One must, however warn against the unfortunate tendency of some prominent Indians toward bombast & hyperbole. Those who accuse PM Nehru of publicly making tall claims and assertive statements viz China, after denuding & hollowing out the armed forces through neglect & resource starvation, should be very careful about chest thumping based on hypothetical (future) capabilities that will take decades to build.

Christian Terrorists, Islamic Terrorists or Just Plain Terrorists?

Since September 11, many of us have taken a close interest in various debates and discussions on terrorism taking place in the media. One of the issues that have repeatedly come up is the unfairness involved in calling terrorist organisations such as “Al Qaeda” as “Islamic terrorists.” There is an un-stated implication that those who use this appellation are anti-Islam and are using this unfortunate episode to tar all Muslims and Islam with the same brush. Such an emotional response is understandable given that some crazy people in the West (terrorists?) have responded by killing people wearing turbans just because the currently most prominent terrorist wears one and by attacking anyone who has the same general features (“brown” as against “white,” “yellow” & “black,” who have different facial characteristics) as the terrorists involved in the September 11 attacks. Responsible people of whatever religious affiliation who have used the term “Islamic terrorists” have, however, been at pains to state and reiterate that the war against terrorism is not a war against Islam. Sufficient time has now passed for us to examine this issue dispassionately so that future debate is based on logic and not on emotions.
The question is whether the IRA are “Christian terrorists,” the “LTTE” “Hindu terrorists” and AQ, JEM, HUM, LET et al “Islamic terrorists” as described by some. The answer to this question lies in their objectives and ideology. The professed objective of the IRA is to get rid of British rule in Northern Ireland and to expel the British from Ireland. To my knowledge they have neither claimed that their objective is to establish a Christian or Catholic rule in Northern Ireland nor have they used Christian or Catholic theology to justify or support their terrorist actions. If this information is correct the IRA are better termed “Irish terrorists” and not “Christian terrorists”. The objective of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam is merely to establish a homeland for the Tamils in Sri Lanka. Again their ideology may have elements of Tamil superiority, but to my knowledge they have neither professed that there objective is a Hindu state in Sri Lanka, nor have they used Hinduism in any form to justify their actions to the outside world. They are therefore referred to either as “Sri Lankan Tamil Terrorists” or just “Tamil terrorists,” even though the Tamil citizens of India, who do not agree with their ideology or approach, may not like the second appellation. It also does not imply that Sri Lankan Tamils or all Irish are terrorists.
The professed ideology of all the terrorist groups that have been referred to as “Islamic terrorists” or “Jehadis” is Islam. This by no stretch of imagination means that all Muslims are terrorists. Though “Jehad” in Islam means “struggle” these terrorist groups have defined “Jehad” as an armed “struggle” between their version of Islam and non-Muslim people and countries, sometimes by name (Americans) at other times in a generic sense. Their rhetoric and justification is all based on Islamic religious texts, even though the meaning and intent of these texts may be quite different from what they profess it to be and which many Muslims have clarified is a gross distortion of Islam.
In recent history the only other groups that can arguably be classed as religion based were the “Sikh terrorists” trained in or based in Pakistan. Sikhism and its greater glory was the professed ideology of many groups, which terrorised the population of Punjab even though they indiscriminately killed both Sikh and Hindu civilians. Their primary objective was the establishment of a Khalistan within India. Thus they are referred to as either “Sikh terrorists” or “Khalistani terrorists.” By analogy the use of the term “Islamic terrorists,” or in the case of Pakistan based anti-India terrorist groups “Pakistani Jehadis” does not appear to be inappropriate.
Islam has some unique features for which it is rightly appreciated. All Muslims are equal before Islam. The religion does not sanction or continence any distinction or discrimination based on wealth, caste, creed or nationality. This positive feature also means that terrorism based on a fundamentalist & blinkered interpretation of Islam is by its very nature one of the most international forms of terrorism since the demise of communism. Though individual terrorist groups may consist of one nationality (e.g. Philippines’ Abu Sayef, Indonesian ALF) their belief unites them as brothers in a common cause with Saudi Arabians, Egyptians, Iraqis and Pakistanis with the same beliefs. Thus individuals indoctrinated with an ideology that glorifies (their version of) “Islam” and promotes hatred against the rest (Americans & their Arab “stooges”, Jews/Israelis, Hindus/Indians, godless communists/Central Asians/ Chinese) are as international as Al Qaeda even if their primary objectives is the “liberation” of a specific geographical area or country from its rulers.

Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?

Since September 11, 2001 the news media have been full of news about terrorism. There is however a debate waiting to take place, which both the protagonists in the war that struck USA on September 11 as well as bystanders such as India have so far avoided. This is the debate inherent in the statement that, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s Freedom Fighter.” One response to this issue is that “I know a terrorist when I see one.” This response may be adequate while the memories of September 11 are still fresh in everyone’s mind, but will be quite inadequate when fresh horrors overlay some memories but not others. Another response is to sweep the issue under the carpet because it may affect the view of the so-called “Coalition against terrorism” in a direction that is unfavourable to India on Kashmir. As I try to show below, it is in our interest to start laying down the terms of the debate by trying to define what such terms mean in the 21st century.
Who or what is a terrorist? Though the exercise may appear at first like peeling an onion it is an exercise worth carrying out. Let us start with the simplest and most obvious definition: A terrorist organisation (or individual) is one that targets civilians (with the purpose of maiming or killing) for the purported purpose of achieving any professed goal or ideology. The purpose of killing civilians may be to proclaim the terrorists existence or to “terrorise” the population. In any case the pre-meditated killing of civilians clearly and unambiguously defines an organisation as terrorist. Even if the primary objective is to terrorise civilians by blowing up a civilian facility in which a few civilian workers are known to be present, counts in my view as a premeditated killing of civilians.
A murderer also targets civilians, but his/her motives are very personal (revenge against a well specified individual or group, money etc.). A broader goal, objective or ideology than the purely personal is a fundamental element of any terrorist organisation. Even an individual terrorist such as the Unabomber had an ideology – anti-technology (modern version of Luddism) even though he did not publicise it. Anti-abortion extremists that blow up abortion facilities in the USA and environmental fundamentalists who blow up polluting factories and kill people present in them or passers by have a well-defined objective & professed ideology.
Can a State be a “terrorist” State? If we think of examples such as such as Chile, Argentina & other Latin American States under their right wing generals, Cultural Revolution China under Mao, Russia under Stalin, the answer seems obvious. We must move from emotionally charged examples to rigorous definition that is logical & consistent, so that difficult grey areas can also be addressed. Applying our earlier definition, a dictatorship (or oligarchy) that as a matter of sanctioned policy kills its own civilians to terrorise its population into docility and acceptance of its dictatorial rule can logically be classified as a terrorist state. A State that sponsors, supports or shelters terrorist groups, whether domestic or foreign, can by the same logic be called a terrorist state if it helps in the killing of civilians abroad.
Can groups of citizens who are trying to liberate their own country from such a “terrorist dictatorship” use terrorism without loosing their right to be called “freedom fighters?” The logical answer has to be an unambiguous no; the premeditated killing of innocent civilians must logically remain a terrorist act no matter who the perpetrator. The tag of “freedom fighter” does not save one from being labelled a “terrorist.” There are, however, grey areas in practice; The precise definition of “innocent civilian” becomes a little ambiguous. All those in the full knowledge of and participating in the administration of the policy of state sponsored killing of civilians are no longer innocent civilians and can in principle be targeted by genuine “freedom fighters.”
The distinction between dictatorship (oligarchy) and democracy is critical. In a true 21st century democracy it is impossible to imagine a democratically sanctioned policy of killing of innocent civilians so as to terrorise even a part of the population. The most fundamental right of every citizen is the right to life. A true democracy must have laws & institutions that protect this right against occasional abuses by organs of the State. Besides intellectual & media freedom, the right to criticise the leaders and the system, and elections that can change government, minority rights are an important component of true democracy. The majority does not have the right to deny to a minority the same rights that it enjoys (e.g. basic education, religious freedom). By the same token a minority has no inherent right to things that the majority does not enjoy (like special subsidies). Every one has the right to convince others of their own viewpoint and thus change a policy that they do not like. A minority (e.g. the “Black Panthers” in the USA) does not have the right to impose its own views on the majority by force and killing just as the majority does not have the right to use the organs of state to terrorise the minority.
Foreigners entering a democratic country for the purpose of killing anyone (civilian, policy or army) can unambiguously be classified either as terrorists or as invaders. A State cannot be classified as terrorist if it hunts down and kills such hostile foreigners. Citizens do not have the right to shelter such foreigners and are criminally liable if they do so. Thus most of the grey areas found in a dictatorship disappear in a true democracy where the minority enjoys full democratic rights. Killing of not only civilians but also the police and armed forces is a terrorist act in a true democracy.
The only grey area is a situation in which domestic terrorists have managed to operate in an area for some time and managed to terrorise the population. Can democratic rights be abridged to fight this terrorism? In my view a true democracy can and should pass laws that can temporarily and in a well specified area or ambit abridge democratic rights for a limited period of time. Given the general problem of deteriorating governance in developing countries there is strong danger of lazy administrators using such laws well beyond their intended orbit. Adequate safeguards must be built in to any such act. In such a fight against terrorists, some innocent civilian lives are inevitably lost. Such actions by the state and its organs cannot be classified as “State terrorism.” If there is individual malafide action (such as settling personal scores) outside the ambit of the special anti-terrorism law such malafide must be punished by the democratic state.
To conclude, any one who engages in, supports or protects the killers of innocent civilians is a terrorist no matter how elevated the professed objective. In a democratic country with adequate safeguards against aberrant behaviour by the organs of state, even those who kill policemen and soldiers who have not violated the law and are engaged in their normal peacetime activities classify as terrorists.