India — indiscretion or prudence

Listen to article

Hans Morgenthau's Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace is a book on political science published in 1948. The author has outlined six principles of political realism in this book. It is interesting to see Prime Minister Narendra Modi's actions and Indian state behaviour against Pakistan in view of these principles. The six principles are: 1) politics like society in general is governed by objective laws that have roots in human nature; 2) a statesman sees certain problems of foreign policy under certain circumstances; 3) key concept of interest defined as power is an objective category and is universally valid; 4) universal moral principles cannot be applied to actions of the state; 5) political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the world; and 6) there is a profound difference of policymaking in different schools of thought.

I would like to start with the last principle. The nature of a man, the nature of society, and the nature of the politics all three combine to produce a typical school of thought and the consequential nature of the state behaviour which aims at the realisation of any evil or good. In this context, it is important to correctly understand the motives and ideological preferences of the man, PM Modi of India, who drives the process of policymaking. If, through his actions, he represents illiberalism, autocracy, nationalism, protectionism and territorial revisionism, then he represents the dark force of regional politics that seeks war and not peace.

To view the Indian state behaviour in light of the 5th principle of political realism is to see how India under the Modi-led government has deprived the people of occupied Kashmir of justice, freedom, equality, dignity and security - which are some of the moral laws that are universally applicable and govern the world.

The 4th principle of political realism speaks of the universal moral principles such as honesty, respect for life, justice, fairness, compassion, empathy and forgiveness. It's not just India but its partner and ally Israel that practices this principle of political realism and considers that these universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of their states.

The third principle of realism, which identifies with interests being defined as power, showcases Indian political realism being practiced under the dark shadows of the Modi-led government for over a decade now. When history is written, the chronicles of this short war between India and Pakistan will buzz with PM Modi's motives, ideological preference and appetite for resorting to violence for his own political gains.

Since Modi has come to power, the direction of Indian foreign policy has gone in no other way but the resolution of Pakistan-India conflicts through war-making. PM Modi's intentions about Pakistan have always been questionable. His anti-Muslim rhetoric earns him praise and political points from the Indian electorate, but the policies that result from his motivational speeches, diplomatic directions and political dictates throw up an interesting question: Will his Pakistan-specific policies be politically successful and sustainable in the long run?

The second principle of political realism talks of policymaking as circumstantial. Currently, the government policies and the politics between India and Pakistan are a popular topic of global discussion and at the centre of global debate. Leadership of both countries is being critically viewed, as what they decide and do would mean the implementation of peace or the commencement of war. This pause in fighting that some of us consider as ceasefire has created a much-needed space for the leadership of both countries for reflection and clarity on the circumstances and the regional and global environment under which fighting a war may or may not be a preferred option.

PM Modi of India is not backing off, and the hatred that he brews against Pakistan is a reflection of a political leader who is bent upon seeking war and not peace as an end. One can contextualise the politics of the Indian PM as an outcome of political realism, but he must carefully consider the consequences of his actions and avoid the Indian state policy from being driven by lust for conflict, self-interest and power maximisation.

Ironically, the majority in Pakistan believe that there will remain little likelihood for reconciliation or room for compromise in Indian politics as long as India, under PM Modi, continues to behave as a regional hegemon and treats Pakistan as unequal. However, Pakistan may be unequal in size and strength, but it is not unequal in its resolve — something that Pakistan proved in its response through Operation Bunyan Marsoos.

The first principle of political realism suggests that ethical norms can be drawn from human nature. Some of the objective laws that govern human nature are the spirit of survival, fair play, inclusivity, cognitive ability for future orientation and curiosity for problem-solving.

One can only wish that India's politics against Pakistan is also governed under these objective laws that govern the nature of human beings. The Indian public judges their PM's motives through the lens of his ideological preferences and thus considers the resulting anti-Pakistan policies as morally right. What the Indian public needs to do is to judge these policies from the point of view of the probability of their success.

The best metric to do that is to see if, following these policies, the lives of the people living in India or even the entire region will become better or worse? Even if PM Modi has convinced the Indian electorate that fighting a war with Pakistan is morally justified, rationality demands that India must weigh the benefits of alternate political action, which is indulging in a dialogue — a pure act of prudence.

It is not the question of who dominates — hawks or doves — in the Indian policymaking circle, but the real question is the rationality of Indian policymaking. Rational minds will have to come to the forefront and comprehend the Indian foreign policy towards Pakistan, minus the policy being overshadowed by the Indian PM's personal motives, ideological preferences and anti-Pakistan biases.

Sane minds in India must distinguish between the Indian PM's official duty and his wish in analysing what is desirable and what is truly possible under the concrete circumstances of availability of tremendous military capability being showcased by both sides, including military platforms that demonstrate destructive powers with nuclear armed warheads.