Dr VBJ Chelakani
Executive Summary:Throughout history, foreign relations of a state have been primarily managed in the interests of the king and the royal families. Appointed Mantris and advisors have employed various diplomatic strategies, often at great expense, to advance the territorial ambitions, religious beliefs, and economic interests of the rulers. Later, the modern states have formalised the practice of appointing diplomats as professionals to negotiate and formulate foreign policies exclusively in the interest of the rulers. This has led to the formation of a diplomatic corps that has become "a state within a state' to advance the national interests, as formulated by them and try to win over the national interests, as formulated by the diplomats of other states. Thus it is a tug of war between diplomats and soldiers, often at the expense of the people on either side of the borders, rivers, mountains and seas. The universal moral conscience that emerged after two World Wars led to the establishment of the United Nations Organisation desires to humanise and democratise international relations and prioritise the well-being of all human beings. Despite this, most of the states, including India, continue to conduct foreign affairs as an exclusive domain of the bureaucrats and their diplomatic channels, without sufficient inputs from the political leadership and Parliaments, let alone the stakeholders i.e. the people on either side. As we move forward in democratisation of world affairs, it is crucial to involve the people directly, so that the collective human rights for peace and development of all people on either side of the border can be taken into account in negotiations. Collective and multilateral international cooperation though the institutions like the UNO and its Agencies should persuade a state to renounce its absolute sovereign power over the lives and the fundamental rights of the people living within its borders.I. The Past:
A kingdom's relations with other kingdoms in the distant past in India were maintained exclusively in the interests of the ruling royal family. The Mantri was the advisor and handled the relations with other kingdoms. Whether ceding or annexing adjoining territories and arranging marriages to form alliances, he acted diplomatically by deploying all kinds of fair or foul strategies. The likes of Chanakya of Pataliputra and much later Machiavelli of Venice fashioned a profession out of scheming in the interests of a patron prince. In the medieval epoch, with the Crusades, we have seen the beginning of kingdoms using state power and armies to champion the cause of Islam or Christianity in other states. But, two thousand years ago, the emperor Ashoka's lamentation after his war against the Kalinga kingdom and his announced policy of compassion towards all human beings worldwide has provided inspiration to define the Indian philosophy of ideal inter-state relations. Since the Seventeenth century, modern political states have started appointing diplomats to formulate foreign policies and negotiate exclusively in favour of the rulers' territorial ambitions, religious beliefs, economic interests and trade. It has become a professional activity by bureaucracy. Later, political ideologies and colonial interests are included as imperial policies. An army of diplomats and ambassadors is maintained by each state with many protocols and elite hierarchy at great expense to the public exchequer. The inspiration came from the diplomatic prowess exhibited by Bismarck of Prussia in unifying Germany. Gradually, the diplomatic corps has become a state within the state, and it has been advancing its national interests by exercising soft or hard power to become a bigger and more powerful state than others. It has become an arena for international power struggles and political expansionism, where each state wants to become a regional power, a bigger power or even a super-power, if possible. When a state alone cannot become big and powerful enough, it would form an axis or alliance or Group or Bloc with some other states. Every state worth its name has formed its diplomatic corps and set up embassies in as many states, irrespective of the size and economy of the country. They lead luxurious lifestyles and entertain with frequent wine parties for the prestige of the state. Some embassies carry out secret diplomacy, extraditions and assassinations; Honey-trapping is one of extra assignments to their personnel. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 is an updated old treaty by the United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities, operating from Vienna in Austria. It is adopted by 192 state-parties and defines the framework for the conduct of diplomatic relations between countries and this is in practice at least for the past 200 years. Therein, the diplomats are given many privileges and immunities. All along history, the people in those kingdoms and states have been counted as soldiers in diplomatic negotiations. The climax of the patriotism of the states has led to two World Wars, where human beings are treated as cannon fodder. The sufferings encountered by the people all over the world, raised the universal moral conscience that led to the formation of the United Nations Organisation, in the name of the people of the entire world. The world consensus did not wish to form a super-state but to democratise inter-national relations, beyond the "national interest" of the states. The welfare of the human being is the centre of all governance and the state is only the custodian of the people living within its territory and not the owner of them. The state has the duty to respect the Universally Declared Human Rights of all human beings, wherever they are. Firstly, the state is accountable about the welfare of all its residents to the outside world. Accordingly, the United Nations system is intended to uphold and protect human dignity and promote fraternity and solidarity, development and peace. All international conventions and treaties are in the interest of the welfare of the entire mankind and its common heritage. Secondly, since borders are not holier than human beings, the inter-state relations should aim at and result in the welfare of the people in both the states; all human and natural resources should be shared equitably as common heritage of humankind.II. Exclusive Policies:
Broadly, we can say that the Indians recruited into Indian Civil Service (ICS) by the British Empire did not systematically participate in the freedom struggle, and after independence, they became Indian Foreign Service (IFS) and Administrative Services (IAS). The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) composed of the bureaucrats, especially the diplomatic corps to which the best of the new recruits to the civil service are admitted, continue to control the entire gamut of India's relations with other foreign states. It alone identifies what is "national interest" and formulates the strategies to protect it. The involvement of the political leadership which is elected by the people is symbolic and limited to justifying and explaining the present state of relations, as briefed by the Secretariat. As the involvement of Parliament is also very limited, the elected representatives have no occasion to train themselves to assume the charge of defining the policies afresh and modifying the strategies according to the needs of the people. Though Parliament votes the budget for external affairs, it does not discuss the judiciousness of the policies; nor the expenditure incurred. The Public Accounts Committee is prudent in its enquiries, in view of national security concerns. Recently, when the Kerala government appointed a senior IAS officer as secretary in charge of matters concerning "External Cooperation", the Ministry of External Affairs reminded it that it should not "intrude" into domains that are beyond the "constitutional jurisdiction" specified in the Constitution of India under the 7th Schedule's Union list. The official spokesperson specified that foreign affairs and all matters which bring the Union into relation with any foreign country are the sole prerogative of the Union Government. On the occasion of India's presidency of G-20 in 2023, about 200 expensive meetings were held in places of touristic importance in India for bureaucrats and diplomats; and very few local people, not even local representatives were given the opportunity to interact with the foreigners. A more democratic approach of involving all local elected representatives could have increased transparency, accountability and legitimacy in international relations. However, foreign states that are more advanced than us in democratic practices do let their people and their civil societies participate more freely in formulating their foreign policies.
1. Immediately after independence, Indian leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Krishna Menon and others were strongly imbued by socialistic values and adopted an anti-imperialist and nationalistic attitude, as a normal reaction for the epoch. However, the ethos of Indian struggle for freedom was different, as India was liberated from colonial yoke with people's non-violent protests and dialogue with the oppressors, rather than through diplomatic negotiations or armed revolt. Though technically we announced to be Non-Aligned, the world knew that India preferred to be in the company of the Soviet Union for ideological reasons. Our Panch Sheel Principles proposed for inter-state relations were highly nationalistic and not enough democratic. Most of the liberated countries in northern and southern Africa, in Southern America and in the Far East were leader centred and some were outright dictatorships, though popular. Strategic Autonomy was already their guiding principle to uphold the sovereignty of the newly-independent state. Since Mao Tse Tung's Red Book was admired at that time, Col. Khadafi of Lybia also produced a Green Book. India might have certainly found some advantages in becoming and remaining heavily dependent upon Russia for all its defence needs. But, it is hardly justifiable that even today, 86% of the military equipment and its spare parts are to be imported from Russia. Where is the Strategic Autonomy in it? All these years, there had not been much collaboration in research and development (R&D) with any advanced country, except in the case of the recent BrahMos with Russia. Therefore, we can conclude that our diplomats and our political leaders appear to be rather comfortable in temperament in working cordially with Russia and in disputing with China directly, since they happen to be authoritarian regimes. This has been so, although both Russia and China had changed their ideologies in the meantime. It is to be noted that India, though active in the Group of 99+1 in the midst of UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Tariff) in the seventies and eighties, it did not lead the debate for the establishment of a New International Economic Order (NIE0). Hence, now, under the changed global context, the notions of NonAlignment, Panch-Sheel, Self-Sufficiency, AtmaNirbhar and Strategic Autonomy need to be reviewed to gain more international trust and global cooperation, if we want to promote a "Vasudhaika Kutumbam" in a multi-polar world. No state will be respected, especially in the world of liberal democracies, if it affirms that, how it treats its own people is its own business and nobody should poke their nose into it. We are respected in the world, not because we have the potential to become a "big power", but because we are a nation of peaceful culture. Our eagerness to join Blocs and Groups, outside the UN system would reveal a contradiction in our strategies and announced principles of state policy. The need of the hour is to demonstrate and inspire in others, an ardent desire for universal values of understanding, trust and cooperation for peace and development for the welfare of the entire humankind. Our Commitments in the annual COP sessions of the UN Conference on Climate Change, our recent initiative to invite all the states to join the International Solar Alliance which has its headquarters in Gurgaon and our appeal to the whole world to celebrate the International Yoga Day, do not otherwise indicate our sincerity.All these years, people-to-people relations and cultural exchanges were never the primary objective of Russia's relations with India, to say the least. Stalin's daughter Svetlana was almost in jail for having married an Indian. Russian leadership was much more generous with African leaders than with Asian leaders as the former were more eloquent and vehement in condemning American imperialism. There was the American Peace Corps, Voice of America and US Information Services that directly communicated with the people in India. Socialist countries showed no efforts to match this. The Patrice Lumumba University near Moscow, the publication "Soviet Land" and the Russian wheat were no match to Indian requirements. At the same time, the Western youth like Hippies made India their spiritual home, while the Russian youth at that time were secretly fascinated by the denim pants of the USA as a summit of fashion for youth. The US dollars were bought at their airports in the black market at several times higher value than the official rate for Ruble. Meanwhile, for India which was one of the least developed countries in the world, at that time, all aid came from bilateral and multilateral agencies like the Paris Club and London Club of donors, and from the Non-Governmental bodies of the people in the liberal democracies of the West. To meet India's dire needs, huge quantities of P.L.480 were shipped eagerly and freely from the USA. The Green Revolution and White Revolution took place thanks to their generous cooperation. American universities have widely opened their doors to Indian scholars and since then, Indian talent and hard work have been allowed to be freely expressed in entire North America for mutual benefit. Some of the Indians are able to assume political leadership in those countries. Since India wanted trade, not aid, it was admitted into G.S.P., General Preferential tariffs in trade for the products it could produce and export.
(To be continued)
Image: Freepik
0 Comments