Photo : Collected
No matter how fast the global economy moves forward, India is not in a position to become the master of global politics. There are several reasons for this. According to a study by the American organisation Pew Research, India is currently known in a dozen countries. Previously, this figure was not so low. While Narendra Modi's popularity is surprisingly high in his own country, it is not even half that high in the rest of the world. The Pew survey also reveals that India's influence and prestige in the countries concerned have not increased at all in recent times.
Within the country, however, the situation is quite different. The difference between national and international opinion on India is not inconceivable. The statistics that emerge from this study are not so sudden. But some of the survey's findings may come as a surprise to those who do not believe in the Modi government's continued 'success'.
Despite becoming the world's fifth-largest economy, India is not viewed very positively by the rest of the world. Even after the success of the moon mission, the country's reputation has spread beyond its borders. India's actions at the international level, whether positive like the provision of a COVID-19 vaccine or negative like the ban on rice exports, have little impact on the rest of the world. The situation was the same in the past. There is no guarantee that one of the world's fastest-growing economies, and the third largest contributor to global economic growth, will be put on life support in the near future. But no one can doubt the success of Indians in various fields abroad. There is no doubt about the growing number and influence of Indians in various countries around the world. Indians are also renowned for their ability to integrate into different societies. It is from all this that it has been possible to develop a high concept of India within the World Congress. But the Indian government's self-promotional tactics and the exuberance of the country's ministers continue to create ironies. However, despite various promises, India has nothing to show for its free trade agreements. Those who are not regularly exposed to the trade press (and many are) may be surprised to learn that the level of foreign direct investment in the country has fallen significantly over the past year and this year. Similarly, foreign portfolio investment (the combination of all financial assets such as equities, bonds, funds and cash) could rise slightly in 2022 but fall back in 2023.
According to the Pew survey, Narendra Modi, whose popularity has exploded in the country, is also perceived by the governments of the various countries as being forced to conclude agreements with India without considering other solutions. Modi almost always tells them that happy days are ahead. The dynamic nature of political events in India is not unfamiliar to people in different countries around the world. But it doesn't seem to change their view of India.
Then comes China. As the power game is always relative, India's rise to power has always been overshadowed by China's progress. Even India's neighbours have closer trade relations with China. They also attach more importance to China than to India when it comes to military equipment contracts.
Even in terms of bilateral agreements, Beijing is not prepared to cede an IOTA of its authority. China has always tried to block India's access to important summits, geo-aggression and the construction of civil or military infrastructure on disputed border issues.
Broadly speaking, the world we live in has two superpowers, two or three superpowers like Russia, and a few medium-power states. India has managed to assert its existence to some extent from third place. Whatever its economic progress, India will never become a "superpower" because of its lack of veto power in the United Nations Security Council. India's identity as a mercantile state, with substantial internal cohesion, will remain fixed despite huge strides in industrial production, rapid technological advances, a robust defence industry, steadily improving human development indicators, and so on. In short, India will always be seen as a country where development work is still in progress. Becoming "advanced" is no longer for it.
India needs to wake up to the new realities on the ground and look beyond the previous situation to ensure that a friendly neighbour continues to remain friendly. Peace and development in South Asia are fragile and must be preserved by deliberate action on the part of political leaders. The 'Colombo syndrome', which refers to the mass protests in March 2022 when people attacked and ransacked the presidential palace, prompting the then Sri Lankan president Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee abroad, is worth highlighting, with obvious comparisons now being made with events in Bangladesh and Hasina's flight to Delhi. Democracy and freedom are deeply rooted in South Asia, and any attempt to curtail them is likely to have serious repercussions.
Finally, despite significant economic progress in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, gross inequalities in income and wealth have aroused the ire of the man in the street. India had the opportunity to develop a Bangladeshi policy independent of the powers that be in Dhaka, a policy based on structural factors such as people-to-people links, economic and investment flows and linguistic/cultural ties. People-to-people links were misused during the Sheikh Hasina period and in an undemocratic way.
Over the decades, India's political, bureaucratic and intelligence interventions have contributed to endless political instability in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal and have strengthened authoritarian regimes. India's interference weakens democracy in neighbouring countries. It hinders the socio-economic progress of these countries.
Such interference by India contradicts the "Panchsheel principle" of peaceful coexistence. India has already campaigned in favour of this policy. Moreover, such behaviour runs counter to the "neighbourhood first" policy so much vaunted by Narendra Modi's Indian government. But it is in India's interests to see the whole of South Asia as politically stable and peaceful. It is good for the Indian economy and will improve the country's international position.
The people of Bangladesh are grateful to India for its cooperation during the 1971 Liberation War. However, in the decades since, New Delhi has sought to manage Dhaka's politics to achieve its own objectives. These included the diversion of upstream rivers, access to India's north-east through Bangladeshi territory and the use of Bangladesh as an important market for Indian goods. For a decade and a half, New Delhi actively supported Sheikh Hasina's authoritarian government in Bangladesh and received political and economic benefits in return.
India intervened massively in Sri Lanka in the late 1980s with the deployment of the Indian Peacekeeping Force (IPKF). Since then, Sri Lanka has repeatedly been confronted with Indian interference in its politics. Subsequently, the authorities in New Delhi began actively sending Indian business organisations to Sri Lanka.
India used to intervene in Nepal through active politicians and diplomats. Today, interference is also taking place through various intelligence agencies and the Hindusm cadres of the RSS. India has intervened in Nepal to control its water resources. In 2015, India imposed a blockade on earthquake-ravaged Nepal. The blockade was aimed at drafting a new constitution for Nepal. India did not welcome the new constitution.
India is also trying to play a role in the internal and external affairs of the Maldives and Bhutan. There is also animosity between India and Pakistan. The enmity between the two largest countries in South Asia affects not only the society and economy of the two countries, but also other countries.
New Delhi can help secure stable politics and lasting peace in South Asia by ceasing to interfere overtly or covertly in the internal affairs of neighbouring countries. In their view, India should support the democratic aspirations of the people of South Asia and let them shape their own future.
India also seems concerned about China's involvement in neighbouring countries. In this case, India must accept the sovereignty rights of each neighbouring country. Countries should be allowed to have relations with China according to their own will, as they do with India.
The US, China, Russia and India will continue to have strong incentives to maintain their influence in Bangladesh. New Delhi has put all its eggs in the basket of Hasina and the Awami League for years, and could accept no alternative to her party. India has long bought into Hasina's argument that "she was the only thing standing between a secular, moderate Bangladesh and a nation destabilised by Islamists". At the same time, no country's security interests are more affected by Hasina's ouster than India's. New Delhi's concerns—whether about threats to the Hindu community in Bangladesh or potential new waves of refugees crossing the border—are real and understandable. Although Hasina has balanced her relations with China and India and strengthened her ties with Beijing, her special relationship with Modi's India meant that she could go no further in her relations with Beijing so as not to alienate New Delhi. This need to avoid foreign policy measures that antagonise India will not be as strong. This could have consequences for Dhaka's relations with Beijing.
The writer is a Geneva-based private banking compliance security expert, columnist and poet.
Messenger/Fameema
