Prime Minister Narendra Modi gathered several feathers for his foreign policy cap during his recent tour of Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand. In New Zealand, his parleys cleared the backlog of 40 years and built upon the bilateral free-trade agreement signed recently. Australia operationalising the civil nuclear agreement by agreeing to supply uranium was another feather. Equally noteworthy was Indonesia’s readiness to buy missiles from India.
The tour’s success underscored the fact that promotion of mutual interests and cultivation of personal warmth between leaders can pay huge dividends. Modi must be given credit for artfully marrying the shared concerns of global leaders with a quintessential India First approach. This is indeed the concept of ‘vasudhaiva kutumbakam’, applied.
In a way, this sets Modi’s foreign policy apart. His approach to bilateral relations has been multidimensional, from cultural bonds to trade ties and from strategic relations to serving the cause of India in global bodies. The core focus of the vision is an insistence on not compromising on any of these elements. Notably, even the world’s most populous Muslim nation, Indonesia, agreed to endorse India’s zero-tolerance policy towards terrorism.
Now contrast this with a situation more than half a century earlier, in 1969. It had been five years since Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s demise. His daughter Indira Gandhi was the Prime Minister. India’s foreign policy was moving along the well-trodden path of the Nehruvian era. That year, a summit of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation was held in Rabat, Morocco, where India was invited as a guest. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, then a Union Minister, was present as India’s representative and his address was formally scheduled.
However, Pakistan threw a massive tantrum over India being invited and opposed the address by an Indian minister. The OIC leadership buckled under Pakistan’s pressure and Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed had to return ‘speechless’.
Fifty years later, in 2019, India was invited as a guest of honour to another OIC summit, in Abu Dhabi, and the then External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj’s address was scheduled. Pakistan again threw a tantrum, but the host country and the OIC leadership did not allow it to stand. Swaraj received a grand welcome and delivered her speech successfully.
These two situations half a century apart speaks volumes when comparing the foreign policies of earlier Congress governments with that of Narendra Modi’s BJP. A key point to note here is that Modi has developed firm relations with a country like Israel without damaging India’s friendships with Palestine and Iran. He unhesitatingly visited the Dhakeshwari temple in Bangladesh and unapologetically gifted a copy of the Bhagavad Gita to the Emperor of Japan. Such examples are enlightening in understanding the shift in policy approach.
Between 1947 and 1964, a distinctive foreign policy evolved under Pandit Nehru which reflected his personality. The same holds true for Modi’s foreign policy today.
The foundational pillars of the earlier era were non-alignment, peaceful coexistence and cordial relations with the newly-independent nations of the developing world. Nehru’s tenure began during a time marked by the huge loss of life and property in the Second World War. Furthermore, he carefully nurtured a self-crafted image of India and Indian leaders as harbingers of world peace. Soon after the Partition, there was also an obsession to tell the global community that we are secular. While dealing with China, Nehru’s dreamy idealism led Nehru to fail to recognise in time the cunning manoeuvres of our neighbour. India had to pay a heavy price for it in 1962.
In contrast, Modi’s policy can be described as a blend of personal summit diplomacy to build goodwill on the one hand, and testing India’s deterrence capabilities on a practical level on the other. During his tenure, several situations arose from Chinese mischief, including the conflict in the Galwan Valley along the border. In response, India heavily increased its military deployment along the Line of Actual Control and imposed restrictions on Chinese investments as well as numerous apps, making it clear that India would not remain passive. Furthermore, despite being exasperated, India deliberately avoided taking reckless steps such as abruptly exiting multilateral groups like BRICS.
Not just in the context of China, but globally, non-alignment—which claimed to be an antidote to the bipolarity of global politics post Second World War—was at the centre of Nehru’s vision. Perhaps to transcend the dilemma of two superpowers of that era, Nehru placed excessive trust in China, which eventually led to national humiliation.
Against this backdrop, Modi’s ‘multi-aligned’ vision allows greater pragmatism. Guided by it, India has made efforts to strengthen defence and strategic ties with the US, Japan and Australia through the revival of the Quad grouping to curb China’s growing influence in the Indo-Pacific.
While speaking about Aksai Chin, Nehru had stated “not a blade of grass grows there”, suggesting there was little reason to grieve the loss of that territory. Conversely, as staunch proponents of cultural nationalism, Modi and the BJP keep cultural boundaries in mind alongside India’s physical and geographical borders. This led to the opening of Kartarpur Corridor in Pakistan, although the access was later closed.
By enacting the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, this government created a framework to seamlessly provide refuge to Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists caught in the grip of spiritual authoritarianism across borders. It is obvious that such a law would not fit into Nehru’s idea of India.
If Nehru’s was an era of complacency on national security, under Modi, we are not only becoming increasingly self-reliant in defence equipment, but have also started exporting advanced weapons. Rejecting the Nehruvian era’s State control, the Modi government has allowed private industries in the field of defence manufacturing, which has had a positive impact.
The current era is marked by conflicts involving the US and Israel against Iran. Since India shares good relations with all sides, there is no alternative but to adopt a restrained and balanced approach. By avoiding empty rhetoric, prioritising our own needs regarding petroleum products and refusing to live in an illusion that India alone can mediate peace in a war involving unpredictable players, this government has demonstrated mature statesmanship—even if it has meant enduring some awkward situations at times.
Vinay Sahasrabuddhe | Senior BJP leader
(Views are personal)
(vinays57@gmail.com)