Indian Parliament Elections
By Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Giri
(Secretary General, Assn for Democratic Socialism)
Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in an interview that elections in India are festivals of our democracy. It is true that across the country, people are in a festive mood and are excited about exercising their fundamental right, i.e. to vote for a candidate of their choice. An avid political commentator had put it in different, slightly derisive words, “Indian politics is electionised not much democratised”. His observation pointed to elections round the year in some part of the country or the other. As India has three-tier governance – Centre, states and local governments, elections for any one of the tiers is happening somewhere in the country throughout the year.
Obviously, several issues and features of Indian politics come up during elections. The issues that matter to voters, and the features, mainly the organising principles, are manifested during elections. But does foreign policy issues figure in the campaigns of political parties, at least the national parties? From the reports in the press, opinion polls, voters’ surveys, it is evident that foreign policy is not a priority. This contradicts with India’s aspirations of becoming a Vishwa Guru or a Vishwa Bandhu, the latter epithet is mentioned in the BJP’s manifesto under the section on foreign policy.
Before we scan the issues in the manifestoes of the political parties, we should learn why voters are not interested in foreign policy. Indian voters like those in many developing countries do not have much interest in internationalism for a variety of reasons. I will list only a few. Many Indians, for lack of adequate resources, cannot travel and explore the world. As it is said, you cannot feel for something, you have not seen. Second, the lack of enough international outlook, many people in India do not comprehend that international communities comprising both state and non-state actors influence each country including India in multiple ways.
The external influence over the countries has intensified under the ongoing process of globalisation. So far, the global outlook has been the prerogative of the big powers – Europeans, Americans and Russians. This is because of their superior economic and military might. Chinese and Indians are new entrants. Ironically, China has the resources but not many likeable ideas that will enable it to play a credible international role. India has the ideas drawn from its rich civilisation and enduring democracy, but lacks resources. Also, India, a vast country with the biggest population in the world, consisting of 28 states, is like the European Union of 27 countries. Both Union of India and the European Union get too embroiled in their internal matters with little enthusiasm and energy left for internationalism.
The foreign policy making is left to an elite club of bureaucrats and so-called experts. Voters hardly influence the making of foreign policy. New Delhi like Brussels fails to realise that playing an international role will enhance the internal strengths. It is a truism that foreign policy of any country is a function of its domestic strengths which are also called determinants. An improved international engagement, which New Delhi seems to seek, requires the backing of domestic heft – economic, political, demographic, developmental and technological. Likewise, a diminished role in the world will level down the internal initiatives, reforms and rejuvenation. India, therefore, needs to internationally position itself which is commensurate with its national strengths and strategies.
From the above premise, let us look at the issues raised by political parties in their manifestoes. We will take two parties for the purpose – the BJP, which ran the government for the last ten years and the Indian National Congress, the main Opposition party. Other political parties are not so consequential in foreign policies. Although Left parties do talk about it, their electoral strength is limited to one state government.
BJP’s manifesto reflects the foreign policy the government has been following: securing the permanent membership of UNSC; putting neighbourhood first; using the Indian Diaspora for investment and diplomatic support; becoming the voice of Global South; creating a global consensus on fight against terrorism, strengthening Indo-Pacific region for security and growth; establishment of India-Middle East-Europe Corridor and so on. BJP seeks to elevate Bharat as a global soft power.
An ambitious but desirable promise that BJP makes is to be the First Responder Bharat. This means, building on its success of providing emergency relief material mainly vaccinations during Covid, India seeks to promote its reputation as a trusted global partner and a first responder in extending humanitarian assistance in disaster-relief programmes. Equally promising is the focus on building cultural centres across the globe to showcase Bharat’s rich culture and offer training in yoga, ayurveda and classical music etc. BJP promises to present Bharat as the mother of democracy. If they do so, it may silence the Indian as well as international critics of the health of Indian democracy.
Congress begins its foreign policy promises by strongly criticising BJP government’s handling of Chinese intrusions in Ladakh, Galwan clash in 2020 and Indian forces not having access to 26 out of 65 patrolling points, which is equivalent to 2000 sq mtrs in Eastern Ladakh. Congress repeats their age-old approach of ‘continuity and change’ in India’s foreign policy. Other references to India’s foreign policy made by Congress, sound rhetorical except that they make a strong claim on restoring status quo with China, a different approach to the conflict in Gaza, and closer relationships with the neighbouring countries. Also, Congress emphasises on building consensus on foreign policy. They claim that this was the case since independence until BJP made notable departures from this consensus.
Communication between political parties – Ruling and the Opposition is essential in a democracy. Respect for dissent in domestic and foreign policy is a hallmark of a robust democracy. That said, there could be divergent opinions and approaches in policies including the foreign policy. The consensus the Congress Party is referring to, perhaps existed when Congress party was predominant with smaller opposition parties in Indian politics.
At any rate, it is advisable to make foreign policy an issue in elections. This will enhance the domestic determinants of India’s foreign policy. There is no dearth of information available to voters through the new media, the internet. It is just that political parties should be willing to share their foreign policy strategies with their voters. Before they do so, they need to educate themselves on the world affairs. Many parties do not have a foreign policy cell in their party structures. Congress party has one but not functional, what to talk of other smaller and regional parties. Voters should also demand that political parties should commit themselves to positions in India’s foreign policy.
Let us note that Prime Minister Modi made a reference to Katchatheevu, an Islet between India and Sri Lanka; the latter possessing it. That is the way to mobilise voters on a foreign policy issue regardless of whether it was the right cause to take up since it is not being reclaimed nor is it mentioned in BJP’s manifesto. Implementation of CAA is another. These are the examples of how to use foreign policy in a competitive electoral process. And this is the way to become a world power.— INFA