Foreign policy enters electoral debate

Several years ago, when the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and the Communist Party of India (Marxist)-led Left parties were deeply divided over growing ties with the United States and the India-US Civil Nuclear deal, which eventually led to their separation, a senior Communist leader remarked wryly: “One does not pull down a government and go to the people on a foreign policy issue.”

In a conversation with this writer, the leader acknowledged that despite this, the party would align with the collective stand of the Left parties to withdraw support from the Manmohan Singh government in 2008. Apart from concerns about the western neighbour, he argued that foreign policy cannot garner votes. Now, a decade and a half later, India’s foreign policy has entered the political discourse as the country embarks on its great electoral race to elect the next government.

A couple of surveys published last year suggested that people believed India’s global status rose after PM Modi assumed office, or a fifth of the people believed that to be his lasting contribution, besides raising the country’s cultural capital and India becoming a preferred destination for investors.

The Modi government pursued a policy of ‘strategic autonomy’ and ‘multi-alignment’. During the campaign, BJP leaders are building a narrative away from projecting India as a ‘Vishwaguru’ to an emerging role as a ‘Vishwabandhu (friend of the world).

Traditionally, the country’s foreign policy is considered bipartisan. However, the Congress, in its manifesto, attacked the BJP for departing from building consensus in foreign policy. It underscored the approach in the ongoing Gaza conflict as a case in point.

During the last four years, differences over foreign policy became more pronounced after the bloody Galwan clashes and the continuing standoff at the India-China border. The Congress accuses the government of giving a ‘clean chit’ to China on reports of incursions. Attempts by the Opposition to raise the issue in Parliament were turned down, citing sensitive security aspects around the subject.

Now, as nearly 97 crore people have begun speaking through the ballot, the China situation is on the agenda, with the Congress party declaring in the manifesto to “work to restore the status quo ante on our borders with China and to ensure that areas where both armies patrolled in the past are again accessible to our soldiers.” It promises to adjust the country’s policy towards Beijing until this goal is achieved.

The BJP manifesto builds upon the perception of India’s arrival on the world stage as a strong voice; its rising stature; growing economic heft; increased multi-engagement with the great and middle powers, on the one hand; cultivating countries in farther corners of the globe, on the other; and finally expanding the frontiers of its cultural and soft power.

By hosting the G-20 and projecting the Summit as evidence of India’s global acceptability among comity of nations, the BJP promises to continue to pursue a twin-pronged attack on terrorism and corruption through global forums like the United Nations, BRICS, SCO, and Commonwealth while working to strengthen other plurilateral and trilateral platforms, including its commitment to ensure an inclusive, prosperous, and secure Indo-Pacific. The quest for a seat in a reformed UN Security Council, which began several decades ago, remains unchanged, and the BJP assures increasing efforts towards this end.

The Congress, with a half-century of experience conducting the country’s international affairs, critiques the Modi government’s foreign policy, asserting the need to repair India’s international image, which has been “damaged by the present government’s intolerance of dissent and suppression of human rights.”

The party reaffirmed its belief in the relevance of ‘policy of peaceful coexistence, strategic autonomy’ and ‘increased bilateral engagement; it made a categorical reference to engagement with Pakistan as fundamentally dependent “on its willingness and ability to end cross-border terrorism”. As for terrorism, the party conveyed that it would work with other countries to eliminate the scourge.

Under PM Modi, the government started off with a conciliatory note by inviting members of SAARC for his oath-taking in 2014, but during the next decade, the ‘Neighbourhood First’ policy did not bear all-round results. The Congress offered to pay greater attention by establishing ‘primacy of special relationship’ with Nepal and Bhutan, increasing economic cooperation with Bangladesh, restoring political and commercial ties with Sri Lanka, and repairing relationships with the Maldives.

Convergence

While both major formations have offered respective viewpoints, which amplifies divergences, on one issue—raising the strength of Indian diplomats—both the Congress and the BJP share thoughts. Considering that India hopes to play a greater role in international affairs with a seat on the UN high table, the need for human resources, trained diplomats, and enhanced infrastructure is acknowledged by both parties. In addition, the BJP offers to start a University of Foreign Policy to train Indians on geopolitical issues relevant to India.

Expanding interest in international affairs

With states competing with one another to brand and promote themselves as destinations for investment and the country entering into a series of trade pacts, negotiating free trade agreements to expand international commerce and foreign trade is on the agenda of both the BJP and Congress. This factor is also responsible for the greater interest of more people in international affairs, as well as the growing number of students and workforce in many countries.

Almost around the time, when the nuclear debate was taking shape in India amid opposition from a regional outfit, the Samajwadi Party, in Washington during a conversation with this writer on Capitol Hill, a leading India-South Asian think-tank chair questioned Mulayam Singh Yadav’s understanding of foreign policy. In response, the writer, then working as a Fellow in the US Congress, was reminded that just as it is said the US has 435 Secretaries of State, meaning each Congressman plays a role in shaping the country’s foreign policy, why should Indian politicians heading regional parties be treated differently? Today, the debate appears anachronistic.

(The writer is a senior journalist based in New Delhi)