Introduction: The Rise of Realpolitik in India
“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable, and the art of the next best,” said Otto Von Bismarck, who was one of the proponents of realpolitik. Realpolitik is a foreign policy approach that prioritizes the preservation of the state and the promotion of national interests. It primarily depends upon the application of force to accomplish these goals. Traditionally, it has been associated with great statesmen like Richelieu, Bismarck, Stresemann, and Kissinger. To some degree, it can be considered the real-world manifestation of the realist school of international relations theory.
In recent years, India has failed to enact the “neighborhood first” policy by following an Indian version of realpolitik. India has tried to infiltrate its muscle power into the domestic policies of Nepal, the Maldives, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. The Indian approach to safeguarding their national interest is driven by a fear that is deeply set, not only projecting itself as a “Vishwa-Guru,” or global leader, but also maintaining this image internationally. This increases the pressure to keep the reputation both within India and with outside countries. The drastic implementation by India has made sure that there is now a persistent panic along its border, which leads to a shift in perception among former allies who now look at suspecting India. Now, after the Hasina regime’s downfall in Bangladesh, these arguments have turned into evidence… by the method of proof by contradiction.
India has projected a vision of being non-aligned and valuing deeply the country’s own strategic autonomy. Right after independence, it pursued a policy of non-alignment to reach out in terms of diplomacy with neighboring countries. It tried to build and maintain a bilateral relationship with its adversaries, namely Pakistan and China. The perception of India as a free nation interested in peace and democratic values through public diplomacy helped it create a favorable ideological alignment with Western nations. India adopted the so-called “Gujral Doctrine” in relation to its neighborhood ties: the philosophy of being friendly without reciprocity but in supply and accommodativeness, to the extent possible with all sincerity and trust.
Failed “Neighborhood First” Policy
Over the past few decades, a more proactive and interventionist approach to foreign policy has been adopted by India. Propelling the shift were the aspirations at the domestic level of the Modi regime. China has successfully outturned India with its large economy and spread their influence with projects like the “Belt and Road Initiative.” This serves as a wake-up call for Delhi in order to safeguard their neighborhood from Chinese footprints in the interest of national security. The paranoia reached its zenith when China declared Pakistan an “all-weather strategic partner,” a declaration that has already been implemented through CPEC (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor) and the Chinese presence at Gwadar Port.
With Chinese investment making its way into other neighboring states like Nepal, Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Sri Lanka, Indian officials resort to extreme measures to maintain their influence. First on the list is Nepal a Hindu-majority state where India has historical and ideological ties. In 2015, after an earthquake hit Nepal hard, India unofficially blockaded borders for about six months, which worsened the humanitarian and economic crisis. India wanted some domestic policy changes in Nepal’s government’s stand, which would be in favor of Indian political interest. Border disputes, natural resources’ exploitation, trade imbalance, and racism against people belonging to Nepalese ethnicity in India made this anti-Indian sentiment strong enough; it was reflected in recent elections where a pro-Chinese party came into power. In Sri Lanka, what India has done is seek a tie-up with the Tamil population on internal political issues, thereby diverging interests with the Buddhist Sinhalese majority. The Indian media has pinned the narrative of the “Chinese debt” to be the reason for which Rajapaksa’s government fell, without mentioning anything about the authoritarian and corrupt nature of that regime.
Delhi’s attention regarding the Maldives was mainly directed towards Solih and his party, who publicly supported an “India First” policy and participated in undisclosed military arrangements. This development undermined the Maldives’ sovereignty, paving the way for President Mizzu’s ascent to power via the “India Out” movement. India might consider addressing the situation in the Maldives by utilizing the strategic location of the Lakshadweep Islands. Nevertheless, the recent docking of a Chinese surveillance vessel at Male Seaport suggests that China is advancing its “string of pearls” strategy.
Dual Strategies in Bangladesh
In terms of Bangladesh, India has consistently implemented a dual approach to foreign policy, or “Janus’s two faces.” This phenomenon becomes evident when the extremist leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) label Bangladeshis as “intruders” and “termites” to exploit the domestic politics of the Hindu majority vote bank while simultaneously maintaining support for their longstanding ally, former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, and her political party, the Awami League. Bangladesh is India’s single largest trading partner in Southeast Asia. Despite all the historical and cultural relations, its public dissatisfaction has been incomprehensible to India. India has acted as a protector of Hasina’s tyrannical regime for more than a decade, kept in power through fabricated and dummy elections. The latest one is the January 2024 election in which only the candidates of the Awami League participated, a very clear example of one-party state rule. India kept silent and recognized this new government, which the EU and the US did not trust. Growing cases of brutal BSF killings at the border, water disputes creating floods, and CAA bill promotion ruined India’s image among Bangladeshis. On August 5, Hasina resigned in the face of a mass uprising from the nationwide student movement and fled to India as a deposed leader. The Indian narrative once more tried to project that it was an Islamist conspiracy with a military coup. Bangladesh now is expected to go on a more independent course vis-à-vis foreign policy and use strategic bargaining with India regarding the “Chicken’s Neck” region and stability in north-eastern India.
The Geopolitical Costs of Authoritarian Support
It is a fact that the backing of an authoritarian regime would bring dividends in the short term for India, but it’s equally sure to boomerang in times to come. The geopolitical ramifications of such a decision have already started to erode India’s influence within South Asia, with their dreams of regional hegemony at the doorstep of China. The growing ultra-nationalism, as in Nepal, the Maldives, and Bangladesh, is the potential catalyst for anti-India feelings in mainstream politics. India’s support for unpopular regimes has had a negative bearing on its image as a democratic country that stands for freedom, peace, and stability.
The political analysts of India should realize and appreciate the wisdom of other states’ sovereignty and democratic functions, wherein they shall not interfere in their internal affairs. The lingering disputes would require more public diplomacy, economic cooperation, policy redeployment, and cultivation of direct involvement aimed at rebuilding trust. This is an imperative need since India’s march to regional hegemony critically hinges on a stable neighborhood an Indian doyen Atal Bihari Vajpayee had reminded, “You can change friends but not neighbors”.
Be the first to comment