![not the indian way not the indian way](https://i1.tribune.com.pk/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/473761-AakarPatelNew-1354378129.jpg)
Ahmed’s thesis was put to the test a couple of days ago, when the United Nations voted on Palestinian statehood. The vote wasn’t really important because it gave the Palestinians only nominal statehood.
Most nations of the world, 138 in all, voted in favour, including India and Pakistan. Nine including Israel, the United States and countries afraid of it like the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Panama and Nauru voted against.
I was interested to know if Ahmed’s thesis held and looked at the full list, which was published by Israel’s liberal Haaretz newspaper.
Sure enough, Singapore and South Korea were on the list of abstainees. They could have voted in favour, as did most European nations, without offending the US but they chose not to.
India has always thought of itself as something of a moral nation in the rough and tumble of international politics. But its behaviour has not been consistent. It was most moral in the 1950s, when Jawaharlal Nehru joined up with people like Gamal Abdel Nasser and Josip Broz Tito against colonising nations, which were clearly in the wrong. India was then, or at least thought of itself as being, non-aligned. Essentially, this meant thumbing one’s nose at the United States every so often. India deluded itself into thinking its size and history made it important. This dream was disturbed by reality when China clobbered India in 1962 and Nehru went to John F Kennedy for help. He asked specifically for 12 squadrons of supersonic fighters and a radar system. So embarrassed was India with this that it was kept a secret on both sides till a couple of years ago, when Kennedy’s secret papers were published.
![Akshay-photo-file](http://pullquotesandexcerpts.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/akshay-photo-file.jpg?w=625)
America did not give us military aid, but for many decades to follow, India was the top recipient of American charity.
In the 1970s, Indira Gandhi continued the charade of being non-aligned while aligning with the Soviet Union. This was done in opportunistic fashion and India did not oppose the invasion of Afghanistan. One reason was that India needed a Security Council veto for Kashmir to defend itself against China, which came actively in support of Pakistan after Henry Kissinger’s visit to China facilitated by Yahya Khan.
A sort of pragmatism came to India under Narasimha Rao, who recognised Israel. But his term was also a period of great changes in the world. The Soviet Union went, South Africa emerged from Apartheid, and Bill Clinton, the finest leader of our time, got the Israelis to settle with the Palestinians (a breakthrough his successors sadly failed to build upon).
India’s pragmatic approach continued for the most part, with the exception of an act of gross stupidity under Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The mischief at Pokhran resulted in India having its only negative foreign direct investment inflow year between 1992 and 2002. More damagingly, it also ensured Pakistan weaponised its nuclear programme, destabilising South Asia permanently.
Under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, it has become normal again, as is to be expected under a scholar-statesman.
We still don’t have the cold, interest-minded approach of Singapore and South Korea, but then that is not the Indian way.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 2nd, 2012.
COMMENTS (48)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
gp65: "I will post again some key votes where India did not vote wit US...You ca have your own opinion. You cannot have your own facts."
India votes at UN with the US more often than Pakistan, according to a Heritage Foundation study of votes from 2000-2010:
Overall......Important
16.7%..........10.9%......Pakistan
20.9%...........14.4%.....India
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/08/the-us-should-link-foreign-aid-and-un-general-assembly-voting
Author should state the approach that he thought was "pragmatic". Otherwise it would look like he is abusing his power as a columnist.
@Syed:
What exactly are the precious offerings of South Korea and Singapore to the world any way? Do you mind naming them?
@Lovepak, We can continue to debate the relative military strengths of Israel or Turkey or Pakistan till cows come home. I suggest you visit the website www.worldfirepower.com. They have listed every component of the armed forces of the world including tanks, ships airforce, population and so on. If you take a paper and pen and just jot down the numbers in each category, soon you will come to the correct conclusion how so ever grudgingly. Even allowing for some biases the information I'd pretty conclusive. In a real war situation diplomatic strengths and alliances matter significantly as was witnessesd in the Second World War. US is the biggest kid on the block. As you yourself say that Pakistan government are puppets of US, it matters a lot what the US believes in. Their numbers in terms of income and expenditure, aid to other countries and technology are just awesome. By the way the technological gap between Israel and India is huge. That is why India buys weapons from Israel. The drones that The Pakistani politicians complain so much about were designed by an Israeli engineer by the name Abe Karem. The time scales of their projects on some advanced weapon systems are about 20 percent of American times and the costs are a fraction. All nations have problems including India, the US, Europe and many others. We need to move on and not be stuck in the last century because that is closer to dark ages. Best wishes.
@Riaz Haq: "India votes with US where it really matters...Even the unpopular President Bush was loved by Indians". Bush's popularity was due to the nuclear deal that India got. That does not mean that India always votes with US. I will post again some key votes where India did not vote wit US. – On Iraq, it voted against the war – On Syria ,India abstained – On Palestine, India voted for Palestine statehood
Are you saying these were not key votes?
You ca have your own opinion. You cannot have your own facts.
@gp65: Reply to this guy @syed -- "India has nothing to offer to the world like South Korea and Singapore"
And Pakistan, of course, a great deal to offer -- these are some of the things that Pakistan can do to improve the lot of the world:
Export of high-class terrorism; -Export of high-quality fake currency; -Culture of violence, suppression of women, brutalization of minorities, destroying or burning temples, churches, etc. Killing or attempting to kill children (Malala, for example) who merely want to go to proper school; The world falls at Pakistan's feet, hoping to get some "enlightenment" from its mullahs, religious-fanatic mobs and the like; World's corrupt and most dangerous place to live, where journalists are butchered if they open their mouths, where minority girls are kidnappend, forced to convert at gun point and married to men fit to be their grandfathers;It's true: neither Singpapore nor South Korea can offer these high values and ideals.
As usual, you guys always manage to successfully steer the discussion away from objectivity. Way to go fellows, bravo
@MSS You said stuff like nuclear technology was not taken into account, why should alliances be taken into account then? The fact is, if Pakistan and Israel were alone in the world, Pakistan would be stronger, the same goes for Pakistan with Iran, and Pakistan and Turkey would be very close without nukes. And if the US secretary of state thinks Pakistan is the biggest headache, we're proud to be that. Pakistan is the most anti-American country in the world, more than Iran and North Korea. We don't and no one should give a damn about what the US thinks. Especially considering the fact that our own government are their puppets. Don't want to go to the wars again so I'll avoid it. Listen to my point though. I'm not even trying to compare Pakistan with India, this is not a Pakistan vs India debate. It's the fact that India considers itself much more than it really is. Pakistan has problems, but you see we admit that we're not doing too well. A Pakistani is always critical of his government, the economy, and the state to a point where he is overly critical. Indians on the other hand think they're the most developed country in the world, a superpower, never make a wrong move, are the most well-off country whereas this is not the case.
also if AB Vajpai wouldn't have done nuclear test how would have india signed the nuclear treaty with US? Probably we would have to sign NPT and CBT first. The good thing about Akar is that he doesn't even pretend to be neutral. As usual many Pakistani are happy now who were writing against him when he made prediction about Pakistan.
what the author is trying to say here? apart from sentence "India’s pragmatic approach continued for the most part, with the exception of an act of gross stupidity under Atal Bihari Vajpayee" this author has no stand on anything.
@Riaz Haq: "After the end of cold war, India has essentially been fully co-opted by the US for all intents and purposes. India has been toeing the US line on most, if not all, international issues in response to the rise of China."
Check India's voing record on US. It has voted with US only 19% of the times less often than Pakistan. http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/09/they-vote-against-us-they-kill-us-and-we-pay-them-to-do-it-2/ . Some of the more recent votes - On Iraq, it voted against the war - On Syria ,India abstained - On Palestine, India voted for Palestine statehood
You can have your own opinion but you cannot have your own facts.
Mr Patel,
You seem very knowledgeable about the way various castes in India “look at the world.”
You have already enlightened us about the ‘Baniya way’. Could you now tell us about the Dalit way, and the Khatri way, and the Brahmin way, and the Rajput way,and the Jat way and the...?
Methinks you should write a book and call it ‘A Discovery of India: Through My Caste-tinted Glass (es)”
Not one of the commenters here thought it worth his/her while to protest the author's stereotyping of an entire community - Now that is indeed the Indian way.
@Syed "India has nothing to offer to the world like South Korea and Singapore."
Neither are we anything compared to these countries. Come off your high horse neither Pakistan or India is anything in high tech. Inda may be more. advanced than us but still India does not make Samsung galaxy phone.
@Lovepak, It is not about point scoring, it is about setting the records straight. First, Air Marshal Asghar and some other powerful men havemadethis statement many times that India has never attacked Pakistan. Also read some impartial historians of the western type. Pakistan had the same reason to attack India in 1962 as it was in 1965. But In some ways Ayub Khan was a gentlemanandhe got along with Nehru fine. India were down at that time because of Chinese debacle, but Ayub resisted the temptation. About the wealth being not distributed evenly, thatis always the case evenin the west including US and Europe. Your point about Pakistan's military standing, the nuclear dimension is not considered when the strengths of a military force are calculated because nukes are not weapons of war. Israel and Turkey are certainly more powerful than Pakistan because Turkey is a member of NATO and Israel can always count on American military support and the reason the Iraniansto are worried. Finally, there may well become Indians wishing Pakistan away, equally there are Pakistani wanting to furl a Pakistani flag on Red Fort in Delhi. most people of both nations like to have peaceful relations with each other. A good insight into what the world thinks of Pakistan can be had from reading BobWoodward's book Obama's Wars or David Sanger'sbook Concfrontand Conceal. US Secretary of State once remarked that the world's biggest headacheis Pakistan.
It's true India's foreign policy has been basically "bependi ka lotaa" (a rounded vessel). India was among the nations which demanded in the Fifties that China be admitted to the UN, and once China became a member of UNSC, it gave sleepless nights to the Indian govt. India since the time of Mahatma Gandhi had been supporting the cause of Palestine, but gets the flak from OIC almost every year over the Kashmir issue. India stood on a high moral pedestal as a non-aligned nation in the Fifties but went begging to the US for squadrons of jet fighters to counter China. Our mandarins sitting in South Block have the typical ostrich-like mentality. Nehru made many mistakes on the issues of Kashmir, on non-alignment, on state-directed socialism, but one thing even his adversaries agree: he provided stability to Indian democracy, because he was a great democrat. Unfortunately, Pakistan did not have one. After the demise of Jinnah, and the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan, Pakistan became a rudderless nation, casting its lot completely in the hands of the US, by becoming a member of CENTO. The Americans, over the years, had been undermining Pakistan's democracy and had been supporting military dictactors, whether Ayub, or Yahya, or Zia or Musharraf, just like they had been doing in Indonesia, Thailand and Egypt. It's the US which has harmed Pakistan's journey towards true democracy. It's only now that Pakistan has started savouring the true meaning of democracy free from military interference ( for how long, nobody can tell), but the influence of mullahs, military and the US on Pakistan's policies is still visible. A CIA man kills a Pakistani in open daylight, is arrested, and then whisked away to his country, with the US paying blood money. Surely, it's very difficult for countries like India and Pakistan to stand up to the superpower, because it's the superpower who calls the shots and brings an end to Kargil conflict and/or eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation between the neighbours. About Vajpayee govt's decision to go nuclear, it was part foolish and part mandatory. The whole world knew that Pakistan and India were already making nuclear bombs in the basement, and it was only time when these countries would declare it publicly. Ultimately, the nuclear weapons are going to bring ruin to both, and for India, the rider is: China too must dismantle all its nuclear weapons. And then, China will demand the US to do likewise. So, it's a sort of merry-go-round situation. The only way out is Rajiv Gandhi's appeal to the UN : there must be universal nuclear disarmament.
@MSS Apparently you're right about the per capita income. The Purchasing Power Parity is irrelevant to what I said, I already admit the state economy is going pretty well. Why would Pakistan attack India in 1962, it's been India who has tried to invade Pakistan all 3 times. Wake up to the fact that it is not Pakistan that wants India off the world map, it's India that wants us to be a part of them. That was the Indian aim in all 3 wars and other than 1971, that is why we think you lost. And you're missing my point, the wealth created by your economy is not going down to the ordinary person, it is with the filthy rich businessmen. Also a misconception that many Indians make is that Pakistan is the problem with the region. The truth is that the problem is India trying to be too much of a bully. Nearly all of your neighbors have problems with India, not just Pakistan. Pakistan and China are the only major countries beside you so only our voices are heard. Truth is, the same resentment also lies in all your other neighbors. And size of the army is also not a useful stat because India has always had a stronger army than Pakistan but the Pakistan army has always been the more efficient. And I disagree with Pakistan being 15th, the list has Israel, Iran, South Korea, Japan and even Taiwan ahead of Pakistan. And that is totally false. Not to mention considering nuclear power. These countries (especially Taiwan) aren't even nearly as powerful as Pakistan neither in strength or technology, and in reality neither are the European countries mentioned. They only do well because of alliances, individually they're not as strong as Pakistan either.
@lovePak: Truly love is blind.
More damagingly, it also ensured Pakistan weaponised its nuclear programme, destabilising South Asia permanently.
We are just kididng ourselves here aren't we? If Pakistan can perform tests within days of Indian tests, weaponizing it is just a few months away. So what was already happening in the background was brought to the foreground. That is all there is to it. To consider that as a foreign policy mistake which pushed Paksitan into a nuclear arms race in 1998 is stretching it.
Great article, and it's good to see Indians acknowledging it too. India considers itself to be much more than it really is. It considers itself the strongest military power in the world when in reality it has only fought decently against Pakistan which is much smaller. When it fought China, it got a reality check. It's not Pakistan that's hated by it's neighbors. Pakistan has good relations with China and Iran and Sri Lanka also close by, not so good with Afghanistan and India. India has poor relations with Pakistan, China, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Yes, it is an economic power, but based on individual levels, it is and always has been poorer than Pakistan. Our per capita income is higher, our poverty is lower. The tremendous wealth being generated by the economy is only dropping into the hands of very rich businessmen who buy football clubs in England. It does not go down to the ordinary people. India is doing well in many aspects, but it isn't as mighty as Indians will have you believe.
@Humaira Nehru was a great man. In running the country he made 3 errors of judgement: 1. When offered a permanent seat at the UN security council after the collapse of Nationalist China he declined saying China deserves it, 2. He did not show sufficient foresight when dealing with China in 1958 and the next 4 years, 3. He did not listen to his generals in 1948, being true Gandhian, or there would be no Kashmir issue today. As Indra Gandhi remarked years later,"my father was saint who wandered into politics..." The world listened to Nehru because he always took a moral stand.
@Syed: "India has nothing to offer to the world like South Korea and Singapore."
Yep. Nothing except a 5000 year old civilization that is the birthplace of 4 religions. A philosophy of non-violent resistance to oppression. A role model that democracy can work within a country that has such widespread poverty and diversity. Yoga and meditation. A fantastic vegetarian cuisine. In the world of entertainment : Bollywod and IPL.
Oh and before I forget - an economy that is larger than both of those countries combined.
@syed- Pakistan offers a bouquet of terrorists and terror mechanics to the world and itself. Compared to this....yeah india has nothing to offer. I'd suggest next time keep the law of gravity in mind. When u spit at the sky it lands squarely on ur face.
@Supariwala: "Thank God for rational Indians in this world who do not subscribe to extremist saffron Hindutva ideology.We need more secularist people like Mr. Aakar Patel who can see through the big picture."
Clearly you know very little about India's politics. All political parties including BJP that Pakistanis love to hate have to swear by the Indian constitution which is secular. So while undoubtedly there are individual bigots present in India -like there would be in any country, there is no institutionalized bigotry. Secularism is in the DNA of the country - in its civil society, in its judiciary, in its media in fact in the very idea of India. So we do not need an obscure journalist to reinforce secularism to us.
If you are looking for a breach of secularism, please look in your own backyard and look at the plight of Hindus, Christians, Ahmadis and Shias. There are not just individual acts of bigotry but hatred 'for others' is institutionalized.
@Syed: "India has nothing to offer to the world like South Korea and Singapore."
Except a 5000 year old civilization that is a birthplace of 4 religions, yoga and meditation, philosophy of non-violent struggle, demonstration of unity in diversity, an example that even a poor country CAN be a successful democracy not to mention entertainment via Bollywod and IPL. Oh and lest I forget, an economy which is bigger than both the countries you listed.
@Humaira: The detractors of Nehru have labelled him a lot of things on him, but to call him a modern day Chanakya is preposterous. Most of his opponents would in fact demonize him as incredibly naive.
Addendum : Statecraft is not governed by emotions. When India faced defeat at hands of Chinese in 1962, idiots jumped on the betrayal bandwagon. Truth be told deception is game in statecraft and a nation would be lucky to have leaders who understand the intricacies of Machiavellian policies.
@Humaira
'Nehru was a disgrace to land that.....'
Please elaborate.
India has nothing to offer to the world like South Korea and Singapore.
India had ceased to be a non aligned country from the 60s. To call India a non aligned country since then is a joke. From the 60s it was always circling in the Russian orbit. A great and one of the loudest critic of US involvement in Vietnam. Any US ship crossing the Indian Ocean would bring a million people protesting outside the US consulates in Calcutta or New Dehli clamouring to keep the Indian ocean free. No such things happened when the Russian ships appeared. Building the US base at Diego Garcia aslo brought tremendous protest from India.The real test of non alignment for India came when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. It was termed by India as "Invited by the people of Afghanistan". India along with the Warsaw Pact countries were the only ones who recognised the Afghan Regime of Hafizullah Amin, Babrak Karmal and Najibulla. The late Indian Prime Minister I K Gujral had admitted that cold war realities had prevented Indian from critcising the Soviets on the invasion of Afghanistan. Such is the quandary of India's nonalignment.
on ever changing dynamic world stage, you need to steer very hard. sometimes take U turn. its politics, my dear.
"India’s pragmatic approach continued for the most part, with the exception of an act of gross stupidity under Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The mischief at Pokhran resulted in India having its only negative foreign direct investment inflow year between 1992 and 2002." . Nothing about it was grossly stupid, the nuclear tests were mostly a result of China's increased militarization of Tibet in the 1980's and 1990's. Back then, India was still lacking in many areas of mountain warfare and had to build up the shortcoming in some other way. One year of negative FDI is way better than being undefended from a nuclear nation. . Countries without nuclear weapons (like the Philippines, Vietnam and Taiwan) constantly get bullied by China exactly because they don't have any hardpower when it comes to their territorial disputes, and the Chinese respect only hardpower, not international laws. . A major reason for the Indian army's weakness in the 1950s and 60s was because the then leaders spent a major part of the budget in developing what was really necessary (industries, agriculture, the IITs, expanding the railway system, legal processes), thanks to which India's growing at such a pace now. After noticing military coups around the world, especially the military coup in Pakistan in 1958, India's leaders were worried, with good reason, that a strong army without a strong administration, would end up in a military dictatorship. . Thus, because of the above, the entire 50s and 60s went in improving centre-state relations, deligning state-level languages, and building up a strong judiciary and legislature. China's invasion in 1962 provided the catalyst needed for rebuilding the Indian army. Until then, it was mainly used for disaster management (like flood relief) and local law and order. . Gandhi once suggested dismantling the Indian Army because he said that India need not invade anyone, but it never came to him that eventually it would be other countries that would begin the invasions.
India's going nuclear was a correct decision. So, was Pakistan's decision to go nuclear. One reason cited by Mr. Vajpayee was that the Indian scientists were getting discouraged after so many years of inaction to go nuclear and new generation were shunning studies in nuclear field. This would have left India greatly disadvantaged in the future. However, it was foolish on the part of Mr. Advani to provoke Pakistan with inflammatory statements immediately after the blast. But, it did work to India's advantage. The explosions by Pakistan followed by its proliferation activities gave India a permanent advantage. BJP should also be given credit for the way it handled the nuclear fall out. Jaswant Singh engaged USA, both aggressively and convincingly in continuous discussions for nearly 18 months that brought about a complete change. Bill Clinton visited India with his family and celebrated Holi. BJP also handled the financial fallout effectively through its diaspora in USA and elsewhere. They mobilized them who in turn remitted enormous amounts to India and India was at no time in a financial crisis. I doubt if any other party would have had the courage, confidence and tact to handle the situation so effectively. India's going nuclear has brought significant advantages to India. It made India more confident and brought in inflows of technology and funds. It has also made China to act more reasonably towards India and even Chinese are investing huge amounts in India. Today, when China issues stapled visas or shows parts of India as its region on its passports, India is able to retaliate more effectively by making the Chinese carry an Indian version of the map on their own passports. India is effectively able to stamp its version on Chinese passports which China has not been able to do. If this trend spreads to other countries, Chinese should be worried that its citizens visiting other countries may be carrying on their passports, a stamped map that they may not be to their liking.
Thank God for rational Indians in this world who do not subscribe to extremist saffron Hindutva ideology.We need more secularist people like Mr. Aakar Patel who can see through the big picture.
Nehru was a disgrace to land that gave birth to the art of cold political maneuvering, thousands of years before the west caught on during the time of Machiavelli. None other the great Chanakya to whom most modern ideas of real-politik are traced back to.
I am reading... more reading.. and reached the end.. clueless... Thanks for making me confused with the confusing things you trying to say.
Not non- aligned, not aligned, not cold minded - so that is the Indian way.
What are you trying to say, Aakar?
Pokharan2 was not a mischief or stupidity but an imperative. It removed any ambiguity about the nuclear programmes of both India and Pakistan and Pakistan also should be more comfortable with this situation. Indian PM Rajiv Gandhi had also considered going overtly nuclear but was discouraged by the economic pressures at that time. The sanctions happened but India rode them well because of the liberalisation of economy. 1.2 Billion people, is a huge market even for the US. Nuclear weapons are not for use but show or America would have bombed the taliban out of existence. Author is generally correct in his assertions except this one.
More damagingly, it also ensured Pakistan weaponised its nuclear programme, destabilising South Asia permanently. An op-ed that was going perfectly well until the writer chose to bring his petty politics into it, along with the gross naivete of assuming that testing nuclear weapons and having them are the same thing. If such is the case, then I assume Israel has no nuclear weapons? The Indo-US civil nuclear deal (although still on paper), the special waiver to India by the NSG, the decision by Australia to sell uranium to a non-NPT signatory like India all indicate zero damage from the Pokhran tests - both India and Pakistan had nuclear weapons before the 1998 tests, and we are grateful to Pakistan for choosing to reciprocate immediately after, thus proving that they had the weapons all along - now graduating into the world's biggest headache, while India appears a bulwark of stability, now seeking NSG membership and a seat at the high table.
Separately, I agree that India had a moral if antediluvian foreign policy which assumed that 'right is might' in complete contrast to the rest of the free world; Nehru, although a patriot, was more like an overeager UN representative than the leader of a desperately poor, socially backward country with disparate internal contradictions, located in a lousy neighborhood. The China war was a wake-up call like no other, and was eminently avoidable - we had reasonably good relations with China in the 50s. As the writer indicates, Indira Gandhi was forced into the Soviet camp due the UN security council structure and the growing bonhomie between China and Pakistan, apart from her own disastrous relationship with Nixon.
We still don’t have the cold, interest-minded approach of Singapore and South Korea, but then that is not the Indian way. Just the right ending..rest part of the column does not make any sense..
There is nothing wrong in having relations with other countries if they stand for democracy and secularism. India wants good relations with both Israel and Palestine, USA and Russia, Pakistan and China , Iran and Afghanistan. Pokhran tests not only raised India's stature as nuclear power , but also exposed Pakistani hidden nuclear program and proliferation.