Review: Making Sense of India's Foreign Policy

by Yatheenthira

In the last post, I explained how the change in government in India is not going to cause any surprising changes in India's foreign policy. Towards further understanding that, this post will look at India's foreign policy.

Even the political groups which have experience in operating under the banner of "Tamil Nationalism" for more than 60 years have a paucity of mind when it comes to understanding India's foreign policy. A few days ago, the TNA released statements regarding the foreign policy position that India had taken, and this clearly put their impoverished understanding on display. The same India that supported and voted for the America-led resolutions on Sri Lanka in 2012 and 2013, during the 2014 resolution, decided to not vote on it. That is to say, India took a no-support, no-opposition stance. Many Tamil political activists, including those who up until that point had been praising India, were dissatisfied with India's recent stance. Some released statements to the effect that India has greatly betrayed Tamils. One such person is the Manner Bishop Fr. Rayappu Joseph. If there were more clarity in nations' foreign policy, there would not have been a need to be so upset.

India's dual behaviours don't make sense -- taking pleasure in supporting one issue, and then later getting angry when it opposes or abstains from another issue out of its foreign policy interests. But I believe that TNA's leader R. Sampanthan's publicly stated a measured perspective on India's stance. In his interview to the the Sunday Thinakkural, he shared those views. That is, Sampanthan stated his opinion to the effect that even if India's decision has disappointed the Tamil people, you can still view it as one that is favourable to the Tamil people. Here, there is one issue that needs to be noted firmly and clearly. That is, neither India's voting in favour of the previous 2 resolutions, nor the abstaining from the most recent resolution, were never taken based on the interests of the Tamils living in the NorthEast. Those were decisions taken entirely from India's national interests. A nation's foreign policy decisions are always taken out of that nation's interests. This is the basis of foreign policy. So why is it that those who are called Tamil nationalists never understand this for a second? They don't understand, or they understand but pretend they don't?

A nation's foreign policy is something determined by 3 issues. 1) That nation's "people" (identity, values, expectations, and skills). 2) That nation's history (context, opportunities, and previous, shared crises). 3) That nation's geography (location, resources, and neighbours). The planning of strong nations' foreign policy is determined on the basis of the above 3 issues. If we look at India's foreign policy on this basis, then the confusions in the Tamil sphere will disappear.

India, which freed itself from British colonialism, has a foreign policy that we can separate into "before the Cold War" and "after the Cold War". In the bi-polar world order following World War 2, India maintained a foreign policy approach to strengthen itself by joining the Soviet camp. India intervened directly in Sri Lanka during the period when India had joined the Soviet camp. Even if this intervention is superficially seen as an issue done with respect to the rights of Eelam Tamils, the truth is completely the opposite. India's direct intervention happened as a result of the geopolitical contradictions of the day. India's goal was both to teach a lesson to Sri Lanka, which had started to depart from India's sphere of influence, and also to send a warning to the other countries within this sphere of influence. The Cold War environment of the day was satisfactorily good for this. But once the Soviet camp fell in 1991, India completely changed its foreign policy approach that it had maintained up until then. After the fall of the Soviet camp, India decided on an approach of joining the camp of the Western, sole superpower America's power bloc in order to establish itself.

In this backdrop, India adopted the "Look East" strategy. The 4 Asian countries which had joined with American and were described as Tigers - Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea - projected superb growth, and India projected its "Look East" policy. In this context, India is seen as the next fastest continuously-growing country in Asia after China and Japan. When seen in this light, India will make its foreign policy decisions while keeping the many, spreading problems in mind. When making foreign policy decisions, each and every country will announce its decisions with their immediate and long-term impacts in mind. As far as India is concerned, it will make decisions by maintaining a tight hold on Sri Lanka and measuring the kind of effects that could happen from its foreign policy approach. If India continues to be stern towards Sri Lanka, it will lead to a situation where China is the only option in front of Colombo. India can take decisions, as a country immediately neighbouring Sri Lanka, so that its hold does not weaken a the country in its immediate vicinity. The decision that India has currently made should be viewed on this basis.

For those who lament India’s abstention of support, they are making the mistake of thinking that it is because of India’s support that the 2 resolutions brought by America have successfully passed. Up to a certain point, India has brought on and established American pressure, and then it has shirked that responsibility. If India had remained neutral in the previous resolutions, America would be able to have been continually bringing up this issue. The people who are kicking themselves because they say that India pulled the rug out from underneath them need to answer a question — in what manner has India’s distancing actually affected Tamils in that manner? Perhaps, if India had voted in favour, there would have been 24 countries instead of 23 countries voting in favour. Are there any people out there who could list all the wonders that would happen to the lives of Tamils through that difference?

This is why, instead of looking here at the issues emotionally, it is essential that we look at them logically. As a result of its noncommittal stance, India has incurred great vulnerability in emphasising the issues of Tamils to Colombo. Particularly, India has become much more likely than before to stress a few suggestions regarding fully implementing the 13th Amendment. Therefore, we should think about how Tamils should use this new opportunity beneficially. It has been clearly pointed out in the most recent UN resolution that the current Northern Provincial Council is being administered under the 13th Amendement. Therefore, in this juncture, India can be asked to provide help for the smooth functioning of the NPC. The NPC elections were brought about because of the continuous pressure exerted by India.

Even if you can't ascertain what kind of promises Colombo gave to India nor which of those Colombo has implemented, and despite the extreme opposition to the 13th Amendment that has stirred up in Southern Lanka, the government has not resorted to getting rid of it. It was India itself that put a stop to it. Secondly, it is because of India's pressuring that the elections for the NPC were held under that amendment that the NPC is under the control of the TNA. Why shouldn't Tamils consider that these two things, which happened due to India, have provided benefits? There is another argument here. Some people continue to release their opinions that India is using the 13th Amendment to limit Tamils' aspirations. This writer does not have the ability to clash against the kind of magicians who pick up their wand and promise to conjure up heaven. There is nothing to say except that the believers of those people ought to be pitied.

Tamils have gained two important truths that have emerged from India's decision. One, Tamil Nadu has not been able to influence India's foreign policy whatsoever. Two, India's foreign policy is not under the control of Indian politicians. It is entirely under the control of Indian officers. While the Indian foreign policy inner circle is based in Delhi, it operates out of 3 bases -- the Prime Minister's office, the National Security Council that is operates under power national defense advisors, the Foreign Ministry. But politicians have no influence at all in these. Perhaps, if there were a situation where politicians could exert influence in Indian foreign policy, the ruling-party Congress would not have decided to maintain neutrality regarding Sri Lanka in the UN HRC while Indian federal election campaigning is going on. But, that's not what happened. Rather, the decision was made out of Indian interests, and will be made that way in the future. It would be a good thing for the sake of Tamils if those calling themselves Tamil nationalists understand this clearly.