Why this self-abnegation?

Before attempting to analyse why one believes that the Gujral doctrine takes too superficial a view of the antagonism of certain States towards India, it is necessary to emphasise two points.

First, as far as one can judge, the doctrine is not one of give-aways, though what happened during his recent visit to Nepal dismayed many who formed part of the delegation. It has to be understood that giving in and giving away does not, in the end, either win friends or influence people.

Second, it is difficult to point to a single important dispute with any State where India at any time since freedom made unreasonable demands or failed to accept the reasonable demands of others. Gujral himself knows this since he has been associated with the making and implementation of India’s foreign policy for many decades. After all, if he has to thank anyone for bringing him forward in national politics, it is Krishna Menon, who aggressively put India on the world map. The need for such aggression on the part of India is greater now than before.

Contrary to what is being written by some commentators, who should know better, the greatness of Nehru’s foreign policy was not that it was a proper reaction of the weak to the strong. Its greatness consisted in understanding the practical significance of the assertion of their freedom by the newly independent countries in their foreign policy. This was practical because the superpowers would never combine to force any or all of these countries to do other than what they wished. It was not only necessary but possible for these countries to be free agents in the world. All that was required was that they should be self-reliant and unite with those who were similarly placed.

Nehru along with Tito and Nasser made these countries aware that world peace was much too important for them and, indeed, for humanity to be left to depend solely on the superpowers and their allies.

The collapse of the Soviet Union has significantly altered the balance of power. It presents new difficulties and problems for the developing world. There is now only one superpower and yet the world is not a unipolar one. The US as the sole superpower seeks to make it a unipolar one. It seeks to establish its global hegemony and domination. In order to achieve this aim, it makes a gradation of countries which are likely to assist it and those which are likely to oppose it.

The Gujral or any other doctrine has, above all, to reckon with this hard reality. What has to be done is to both survive and progress despite this opposition and to strive to prevent this opposition from turning into active antagonism. It also requires being realistic about those States aligned and allied with the US. This is particularly true about Pakistan.

Striving for better relations with this neighbour is necessary and commendable. That has always been so. Much is being made of the non-reciprocity which is said to be a special contribution by Gujral in the matter of improving relations with Pakistan and other neighbours.

Many non-reciprocal policies and measures were adopted in the past. The Tashkent and Shimla agreements are among the most notable in relation to Pakistan. These policies and measures were justified and did some good. But neither Lal Bahadur Shastri nor Indira Gandhi had any illusion that this would lead to a breakthrough in Indo-Pak relations. What is more important, such policies were not taken in the past on the basis of any feeling of shared guilt for the sorry state of these relations.

Moreover, it should be remembered in non-official meetings between individuals from our country and Pakistan that it does not help if some Indians compete with one other in putting our secular, democratic state on a par with the theocratic-militarist, oligarchic State of Pakistan. It may well be that certain topics should be avoided at such meetings. But should inconvenient topics such as the nature of the society and state in the two countries come up for discussion, there is no need for Indian delegates to indulge in non-reciprocal denigration of ourselves.

The Foreign Secretaries’ level talks at Islamabad are good insofar as talks are always good. But behind the bland words looms the Hatf-II missile, the recent report that the ISI-organised infiltration of the Kashmir Valley is going to increase and so is the thrust of the Taliban in Central Asia.

It would also not do to overlook the character and the ambitions of another of our neighbours, China. Neither progress in the normalisation of our relations with that country nor Sino-US diplomatic and economic skirmishes should blind us to the reality that China continues its antagonism to our presence and role in this region. It seeks to be the only competitor with the US for dominance in the entire Asia-Pacific region. To tie us down to sub-continental problems and to use Pakistan for that purpose would go together with normalising relations with an India that is not a challenge.

It is a bleak picture but the sombre colours are not laid on too thick. In this world it would be good were the Prime Minister to demonstrate more his capacity for standing up for basic principles. He has done enough to show that he can adjust and accommodate.

This requires taking the nation into confidence and not lulling it into complacence that the situation is on the point of qualitative improvement because we have suddenly become generous with our neighbours. The nation would not panic provided along with an appeal for vigilance it would be informed about the maximum utilisation of our defence capacity. This would entail changes in economic strategy. The market cannot tell us what to do about defence. The Nehruvian tradition and vision can.