Sunday Times 2
Modi skips NAM Summits: India Opting out of Non-Alignment for American Alignment
A friendship sealed with a bear hug: Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Donald Trump during Mr. Modi's visit to Washington in 2017
It took India almost 44 years to shift from a mixed Nehruvian economy encompassing much of the Gandhian philosophy to an open economy with greater reliance on market forces and a larger role for the private sector. It took the balance of payment crisis of 1991 to make Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, an ex-Oxford economist, to persuade Prime Minister Sonia Gandhi to take this bold and decisive step that sent the stagnant economy surging to one of the fastest growing economies.
The question is now being asked whether India has also shifted from its Non-Aligned foreign policy to one that is American aligned — a shift that will be quite contrary to all what has been said and done all along the years by most of India’s politicians, diplomats and intellectuals. It will be tantamount to standing the Indian Non-Aligned foreign policy on its head.
If this change in foreign policy comes about it will have serious repercussions in Sri Lanka and other South Asian countries as well.
While Non-Alignment was an intellectual toy to India’s legendary Prime Minister Jawarhalal Nehru, it hit him hard when the Indo-China border war broke out and Indian troops received a severe drubbing. His daughter and successor Indira Gandhi was made of sterner stuff and she not only made India’s Non-Aligned foreign policy a force to be reckoned with by her noncompliant neighbours like Sri Lanka under J.R. Jayewardene but also tilted to the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) against Western nations and America, making it a strategic and diplomatic force. The Soviet Union became her Chief Defence Supplier and ally.
Sri Lanka under Sirima Bandaranaike followed Gandhi’s NAM policies faithfully even acting as her proxy in sponsoring the Indian Ocean Peace Zone Proposal which was looked on unfavourably by western powers and their allies like Japan which saw their shipping lanes threatened by this proposal.
India’s shift from its pro-Soviet Non-Aligned Foreign policy began with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Earlier, the US had cut official assistance to India for non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and blocked shipments of low-grade uranium supplies to India’s Tarapura power plant. In 1998, India exploded a series of nuclear bombs to announce to the world that it was a nuclear power and the US imposed economic sanctions.
Meanwhile, China’s economic growth under Deng Xiaoping that began in the 1970s had taken off and it was apparent China was fast becoming not only an economic power but a world power. India was the only country in the Asian region that had the economic magnitude to counterbalance the rising superpower and hence Indo-US economic cooperation and defence agreements began despite the incongruity between a state wedded to Non-Alignment and a full blown capitalist state.
US political analysts point out to a strategy adopted to draw India away from its heavily committed Non-Aligned past. The Indo-US relationship was built on the compact that alignment with America did not require a loss of India’s strategic autonomy. The US assured India that alignment with the US did not require a loss of strategic authority by India and that India could continue making independent decisions even as it moved closer to the US. India won’t be dragged into US conflicts and won’t be used as a pawn.
But some of American policies such as CAATSA (Countering America’ Adversaries) had implications for India, the most notable being India’s import of oil from its traditional supplier Iran. America got round the problem by supplying American oil (probably Shale oil which it had in abundance) to India. America waived off sanction for six months giving time to wean off from Iranian supplies. But it has been noted that American oil supplies to India have been surging since then. From zero in 2016 to 10 million barrels in 2017 to 48 million in 2018. A potential of 100 million barrels has been estimated for 2020.
But great problems are envisaged by CAATSA legislation on the purchase of armaments from Russia, India’s traditional arms supplier. As punishment for alleged Russian interference in US elections, a series of sanctions will be applicable on Russia in the defence and intelligence sectors. India still imports from Russia and has purchased several defence systems after the $ 400 million aircraft deal. The issue is still not settled and the question will be whether the ‘Compact on Alignment’ will hold on Indian purchase of Russian armaments.
The Indo-US relationship is now intertwined in defence, economic agreements and wide ranging military and strategic objectives which obviously has been given priority, with the US and India considering the mutual vital interests of this relationship.
Meanwhile, Narendra Modi appears to be paying scant regard to the Non-Alignment Movement on which India’s international laurels rested. He skipped the 17th NAM summit held in Venezuela in September 2016. India is considered the leader of the Non-Aligned Movement and its absence in the Venezuelan Summit has led to speculations whether India now considers it infra dig to remain a member of the poor countries’ club. Indian officials, however, had said that Modi’s absence was not the result of realignment of Indian foreign policy but because of the confused scheduling of the two days the summit was to be held.
Political analysts, however, have doubts on whether Narendra Modi’s absence from the NAM summit was a strategic move or one caused by chaotic scheduling of the summit days by the host country. Modi’s presence at the Venezuelan summit would have been counterproductive to the sustained efforts made in building Indo-US relationships — America’s bete noire being Nicolos Maduro and their objective being regime change. On the other hand, Modi as an acknowledged Non-Aligned leader could have rallied round the poor nations of the movement behind Maduro and given the traditional bashing to the Americans as is the tradition at these summits of the poor nations. But that was not to be.
Having skipped the 17th summit in Venezuela, Modi skipped the 18th Summit held on October 25 and 26 this year at Baku in Azerbaijan.
This time there were no excuses and the second day of the summit fell on Modi’s birthday where he made much of the birthday wishes sent by his aging mother while supporters were trying to better a Guinness Book of Records for the biggest birthday cake made, reports said. Meanwhile, he pledged a one billion dollars in development assistance to visiting Afghan president Ashraf Ghani. He had sent Indian Vice President Venkaikah Naidu, instead, to represent him. This is indeed shoddy treatment accorded to the biggest gathering of representatives of the poor of the world.
In contrast to the Indian prime minister’s absence at NAM summits he is ubiquitous at pow-wows of less important Western diplomatic gatherings where he seems to enjoy himself.
Indian Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar addressing a ministerial meeting in Baku is reported to have said: Long held assumptions and alignments rooted in legacies of colonialism and the ideology of the Cold War are making the way for a new configuration and partnerships.
Is Non-Alignment on the way out? Or is it that the Indian Middle class represented by Narendra Modi is succumbing to the weakness typical of all middle class people—the temptations of the new rich trying to wipe off their origins and identifying themselves as those of the Old Class.
South Asian nations who believed in Non-Alignment as an article of faith should watch out.