Sunday Times 2
Modi’s big power politics, NAM and vision of Lanka
The greatest enemy of clear language is insincerity—George Orwell
There is a feeling of insincerity and being dodgy about the term ‘Non Alignment’ which was coined in the sixties to represent a group of nations that represented a greater proportion of humanity. The dictionary meaning of the term ‘align yourself with’ implies that if you align yourself with an organisation or a person, you agree with or support their aims. How does this meaning of ‘align’ square up with the ‘ Non-Aligned Movement’?
Under a BIMSTEC umbrella: Modi was given a grand welcome in Sri Lanka. He is seen here with President Maithripala Sirisena
The emergence of the Non Aligned Movement (NAM) during the Cold War years is often explained as the desire of leaders of some nations not to be aligned to either of the superpowers: United States or the Soviet Union. Why did they not describe themselves in positive terms instead in negative nomenclature? Why not a name such as The Independent Group of Nations? The hard reality was that they could not stand independently alone or as group of nations. These abjectly impoverished former colonies, despite their scathing rhetoric against the two big powers, particularly the United States, needed military and economic assistance from the two powerful nations. They were covertly and directly aligned to one power bloc or the other.
President J.R. Jayewardene, himself a former chairman of the Non Aligned Movement, made the trite observation: There are only two genuinely Non-Aligned countries: The United States and the Soviet Union. A cardinal principle of non-alignment, distancing it away from both power blocs relating to defence relations, was observed more in the breach by some countries, particularly India.
Tilting towards the Soviet Union both in anti-American rhetoric while receiving Soviet armaments, India in 1971 signed the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation, which, some analysts said, was tantamount to a defence agreement.
Interference in the internal affairs of Nepal and armed intervention in the Pakistani conflict (1971), Sri Lanka (1986), and the Maldives are blotches on record of non-alignment of the biggest leader of the movement.
The end of the Cold War with the demise of the Soviet Union removed the raison d’être of NAM Despite the reason for its creation being no longer in existence, Indian leaders are still said to be leaders and practitioners of the movement, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi was described on his arrival in Sri Lanka last week.
Modi, after his sweeping victory in the Indian polls, is now doing his victory lap in the region — one of the feathers in his cap being a leader of NAM. But does NAM exist today? On paper Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela is its chairman. Though he is in the news, NAM is not.
There is also the issue whether India could be considered a NAM member if we go by the ideals and principles expressed at Bandung in 1955 and Belgrade in 1961. India has close relations with the sole superpower economically and in defence affairs. Yes, there had been US sanctions against India, when India conducted five nuclear tests in 1998 violating the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, but they were removed by 2001 when the US thought that India could be used as a countervailing force against China the rising power of Asia. The US now conducts joint military exercises with India and there is widespread speculation of a defence alliance between the US, Japan, India and Australia to contain China in the Indo-Pacific region.
The latest move of Modi appears to give preference to countries ringing the Bay of Bengal region (BIMSTEC) after India pulled out of SAARC, the association of South Asian countries. For his inauguration as prime minister for the second time, he invited the heads of state of BIMSTEC countries instead of heads of SAARC states, as he did for his first inauguration.
The reason trotted out is that this is in accordance with his ‘Look East’ policy, BIMSTEC countries including Myanmar and Thailand. Whatever Modi’s objective may be, it looks a transparent ploy to keep out Pakistan, the second most populous country in South Asia and also a nuclear power.
The last SAARC Summit that was to be held in 2016 at Islamabad had to be abandoned when India, together with Bhutan, pulled out, alleging that Pakistan had initiated terrorist attacks on the Indo-Pakistan border. Since then this 34-year-old organisation had been in hibernation.
The achievements of BIMSTEC — Bay of Bengal Institute for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation — despite its impressive name and 22-years of existence are not known. SAARC, too, had only a few successes to crow about, but, despite its internal squabble — smaller countries taking on the giant India — the annual pow-wows brought the leaders together and even the people to know member countries better.
Sri Lankans will be beholden to Pakistan’s supply of arms during the separatist war when no other country was willing to do so and some in the neighbourhood were actively campaigning against Sri Lanka.
Narendra Modi after his recent victory declared ‘neighbourhood policy’ first before visiting the Maldives and Sri Lanka. It was the same policy he declared after his first victory and invited all heads of SAARC nations, including the Pakistani prime minister. But as time passed the ‘neighbourhood’ did not receive his priority.
Whether Modi can qualify as a Non-Aligned leader or is debatable. He is now in big power politics. Whether the big power factor will come into play in his vision of the South Asian region will be of much interest to Sri Lankans.