NonAlignment 2.0 chalks out foreign and strategic policy for India
Warning that the time for India to get its act together is now because of the favourable growth prospects, demographic profile and international environment it faces — all of which may subsequently change — a group of foreign policy experts released a report here on Tuesday, NonAlignment 2.0: A foreign and strategic policy for India in the 21st century, which identifies the basic principles and drivers that would make the country a leading player on the world stage while preserving its strategic autonomy and value system.
Unveiled before a packed audience of present and former National Security Advisers, Foreign Secretaries, Ambassadors and High Commissioners and policy wonks, NonAlignment 2.0 was written over 14 months of deliberations by Sunil Khilnani, Rajiv Kumar, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Lt. Gen. (retd.) Prakash Menon, Nandan Nilekani, Srinath Raghavan, Shyam Saran and Siddharth Varadarajan. National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon and Deputy National Security Advisers Alok Prasad and Latha Reddy also joined some of the deliberations.
As the report reiterated several times, the trends for India to extend its global role and influence are favourable but time is of essence. The basic structures suggested by the report must be quickly implemented because the “underlying factors that are propitious for our growth may not last long.” But the authors say India's big challenge will be to aim at not just being powerful but to set new standards for what the powerful must do, because in international relations, “idealism not backed by power can be self-defeating and power not backed by the power of ideas can be blind.” India's legitimacy in the world will come from its ability to stand for the highest human and universal values and at the global level, “India must remain true to its aspiration of creating a new and alternative universality.”
In a situation where the world is no longer bifurcated between two dominant powers, nonalignment today will require managing complicated coalitions and opportunities in an environment that is not structurally settled, the report say. But former NSA Brajesh Mishra, who spoke at the launch, questioned the approach of the report, especially its view that India not take sides in the rivalry between China and the U.S. China's approach was that of the Middle Kingdom, it wants to be number one, and India's priority should be to build a closer partnership with Washington.
The report deals with India's approach towards the ‘Asian theatre,' the international order, hardpower, internal security, non-conventional security issues like energy and nuclear options, the knowledge and information foundations of power as well as the state and democracy.
NSA Shivshankar Menon commended the overall thrust of the report, especially the link made between the manner in which India dealt with its internal and external challenges. West Bengal Governor and former NSA M.K. Narayanan said the report should have devoted more attention to left wing extremism and questioned some of its conclusions on the internal security front.
The report emphasises that for its strategic and foreign policy to be successful, India must sustain domestic economic growth, social inclusion and democracy. Its approach must be to secure the maximum space possible for its own economic growth in order for the country to become reasonably prosperous and equitable. Although India's competitors will put roadblocks in its path, “the foundations of India's success will depend on its developmental model.”
Keywords: NonAlignment 2.0, global role, India, foreign and strategic policy
Non-alignment was a response to the great East-West divide of the post-war era, a refusal to join or take sides between two antagonistic camps, based on sound moral as well as pragmatic considerations. The fence dividing East from West disappeared some twenty years ago. Perhaps the only surviving fragment of it is the idee fixe on which our diplomatic establishment seems to have impaled itself. A British military historian, in what must have been a moment of exasperation, once remarked: 'The only thing more difficult than getting a new idea into the military mind is to get an old one out.' Something similar sees to have afflicted our diplomatic thinking as well. Non-alignment lost its relevance with the passing of the Cold War, but it is being made out to be some kind of eternal verity; and India's unique heritage.
It's time we got real
Are the experts suggesting a 'doctrine', 'policy' or 'strategy'? The
doctrine defines 'ways' of addressing threats and challenges or
pursuing aspirations. Let the experts develop 'doctrine'. Doctrine
once debated and refined would dictate 'capabilities' required for its
effective implementation. 'Strategy' is the 'ways' of utilising 'means
(available capabilities)' to achieve 'ends'. The recommendations of
experts are neither doctrine nor policy nor strategy - rather a
confused mix of aspirations based on unrealistic appraisal of
capabilities.
Management of national security is a complex yet systematic and
institutionalised process. The report is evidently not an outcome of
any such process and hence remains a non-serious bluster
Some pragmatic foreign policy assumptions by experienced group but must have to be substantiated by more clarity of vision and approach towards the problem addressed in the report.
Wonderful suggestions by experts. Being a Nepali citizen I totally agree with the NonAlignment 2.0; A foreign and strategic policy for India in the 21st century because I heard that extreme mistrust against india from people in Nepal. For truth, most of them don't like India. Why? I have hundreds of reasons; #1. Nobody like being ruled by foreigners. #2(very important) Nepal did one treaty with china regarding boarder decades ago, and still its working. China never expand its boarder taking Nepal's Land which india frequently did in 55 different places from CURRENT eastern to western boarder of Nepal. This may sounds funny to many people who read this because they don't know what's going with neighbours around. #3 India dominate Nepal's internal politics. Example; every new PM of nepal should first visit india, and if he/she don't, then for sure he/she'll not last longer, for example- Puspa Kamal Dahal(Prachanda). #4. Monopoly on trade mainly oil. I've more, but word limit stop me.
It is interesting to note the difference between the way Non Alignment 2.0(NA 2.0) deliberated over past 14 months as stated in the news report and the NTI (Nuclear Threat Initiative) Report also deliberated for a similar period by the Economist Intillegence Unit has been placed before the world forum. No text of the original report has been made available in the past 12 hours while the NTI report was available within minutes at 0300hrs(IST) on 11 January 2012. While the NA 2.0 has appeared just shortly before the Nuclear Summit to be held the NTI appeared nearly 2months before the Summit leading to very serious feed backs globally. hence If any serious feed back is felt necessary from the non capital centric intellectuals/academics/professionals then it will not be forthcoming based on the present news report. And after the Nuclear Summit is over any reaction may not be of any influence value except in an academic sense.
This is a "funny" think tank,in that some of the members, and even
some of India's present "leaders" like, MM Singh[NOT ELECTED by popular vote],Montek Singh Ahuliwalia[again NOT ELECTED],are the puppets of the foreign powers,especially the World Bank and the IMF.Nilekani is reported to have connections with the Yale Universality,a reported CIA front.
What they should be talking about are:- 1.The mega-Corrutpion of the UPA 2.The Dictatorship of the UPA converting India into a Banana Republic 3.The very strong hold of then USA,World Bank and the IMF on the Indira Congress party. These are very serious impediments to any ambitious endeavour.
Please Email the Editor