Over at Mint, my colleague W.P.S. Sidhu reflects on the BRICS summit in Sanya, where the big non-Western powers were in a non-interventionist mood…
While the categorical assertion in the Sanya Declaration that the BRICS “share the principle that the use of force should be avoided” is commendable as a tenet, ruling out the use of force under any circumstances cannot be a viable policy option. Indeed, at the regional level all the BRICS countries have resorted to force at one time or another when other means of persuasion have failed. India’s interventions in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the Maldives are evidence of this pragmatism.
India’s stance on interventionism is one topic of a new paper just out from CIC by Nitin Pai of the Takshashila Institution. Nitin focuses on India’s policy towards weak states in its region – including Afghanistan, Nepal and Burma but also Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka – and argues that New Delhi faces a “paradox of proximity”. The fact that India is so close to these weak states means that it has (i) strong reasons to be involved in their affairs but (ii) even stronger reasons to be cautious. This is why India’s interventions in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, decades ago, remain exceptional:
Domestic politics, fear of military overreach and bureaucratic factors moderate boldness and circumscribe policy innovation. They have also forced New Delhi into a pattern of reacting to developments. Other than the peace process with Pakistan, India’s political leaders have shown little interest in stewarding bold departures from extant neighbourhood policy. Changes in New Delhi’s policies have been incremental even in the face of momentous changes in the countries of the region.
So while Sidhu emphasizes India’s “pragmatism”, Nitin highlights its “cautious prudence”. For those used to U.S. debates between idealism and realism, a contest between pragmatism and prudence may seem rather low-key. But a measured rise to superpower status may well be more sustainable than a meteoric ascent.
