Pramit Pal Chaudhuri in Sydney
He was an engaging and knowledgeable speaker who gave us his views on a range of topics broadly centered around Indian foreign policy. I learned a great deal, but mostly I learned how little I knew about the topic. I’m going to attempt a summary of various points that Mr Chaudhuri made, and hope that they don’t get too distorted through being reinterpreted and reworded.
America
America has been until now the dominant player and force in Asian geopolitics. Recently America has encouraged India to assert itself more in the region to act as a counterbalance. America’s reasoning is that India is a more reliable negotiating partner. America supplies resources through think tanks, administrative support, and other ways.
George Bush was very supportive of the US-Indian relationship, and as a result, he was popular in India. He had a 70% approval rating in India when he left office.Historically, a superpower that helps the rise of another state may be encouraging a competitor that will replace them. Why does America not see this danger? There are two reasons.
First, India is a democracy; the evidence suggests that democracies do not go to war with each other.
Second, America would like a second force in the region to counterbalance China, and India is an ideal candidate. India’s system of government and social and administrative structures are relatively stable.
Whether India becomes a superpower or does not, we can be reasonably certain that Indian society will, at its core, be the same as it is now. Perhaps more wealthy; perhaps there will be other changes, but discontinuity is unlikely. by contrast, nobody knows what China will look like in 50 years. If you ask the Chinese, they don’t know themselves. They cannot answer the question of what sort of society will be, except to say that they know the current system can’t stay in place forever. That does not give certainty; it gives unease.
Beyond India, other nations in Asia have essentially hedged their bets, planning for both a benevolent and a malevolent future China.
India
India has until this point in history been an isolationist state. As one indicator, its entire foreign service has 700 employees. Five of them are assigned to North America: one for Canada and four for the United States.
Of course, all these other countries have entire embassies in India; but when you ask the Americans, for example, who they talk to, they admit that it’s the same four guys. They try to catch them in different moods so they can write different reports.
But America is encouraging India to change that attitude, and the foreign service is set to expand to many times its current size over the next few years. India has interests in other countries, and it makes sense to protect those interests. it’s not about becoming something more, trying to become more powerful; it’s about expressing the power and influence that is already there.
The Indian army has some of the most experienced fighters in the world, because when they sign up they are immediately engaged in fighting. But spending all their days fighting provides tactical experience but does not lend itself to strategic thinking. There is now a recognition that the army needs to engage in more strategic thinking in the armed forces. The Indian navy is the furthest down this road (perhaps it’s all that time they have on their hands, sailing around in ships).
Pakistan
In the past, India and Pakistan were seen as rivals, “balancing” each other. That’s no longer the case, as India has progressed economically far beyond Pakistan and the gap will only grow in the future. The role that India has to take in future not one of a rival, but a helping hand, assisting the Pakistanis in establishing a stable society.
China
China is the rising power in Asia. While they do not see their goal as removing American influence, they have the more realistic medium term goal of replacing Japan as the second regional superpower. Once they are installed as Japan’s replacement, they can then turn to the Americans and negotiate how the region is divided in terms of influence.
There was recently a game of brinkmanship on the India-China border, with China placing more troops, followed by India placing more troops there, followed by China, and so on. During this time, the Chinese media were publishing articles about how bad India was. Then, when they decided to back down, the media started publishing articles praising India.
Like the conflict in Kashmir, these things happen in remote regions, far from India’s centres of population. They stay in the headlines for a few days, but the public does not take an interest for long.
Japan
Japan has realised that they need to pull their investments out of China over the next 20 years. India is the obvious replacement, but although India has cheap labor and other advantages, it has terrible infrastructure. To solve this, India has told Japan, we will build the infrastructure for you. Plans are underway for a massive development to build a Delhi-Mumbai industrial corridor, and Japan has already committed 40 billion of the total cost of 90 billion that it will cost.
If that is successful, there is already talk of other corridors.
Asian and Asia-Pacific forums
There are many asian and asia-pacific multilateral forums, including APEC, ASEAN, and so on… there are so many, they form an alphabet soup. They are notable for their lack of influence. They have are useful for trade negotiations, but have failed to provide any results beyond that.
Australia
Australia has had setbacks with its diplomatic relationship with India. When India conducted nuclear tests in 1998, Australia reacted stronger and more negatively than any other country, effectively severing the relationship.
On Chinese investment in Australia, this does not bother India at all, because it’s the same everywhere. If you go to Africa or South America, you see the Chinese flag. So the fact that Australia has Chinese investment or is engaged in trade with China is not important at all, it would be unrealistic to expect otherwise.