India’s newly elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s foreign policy agenda can perhaps be summed by the well-known aphorism of an American politician: “It’s the economy, stupid!” Modi’s relatively few statements on foreign policy during the campaign suggest a belief that India can only be consequential on the world stage with a growing economy. Economic growth and nationalism will almost certainly be the two major drivers of Indian foreign policy under the stewardship of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader swept to power on the slogan of development first. His parliamentary strength also allows him to be decisive, even daring in the conduct of foreign policy, an opportunity lacked by his predecessor.
During his 12 years as chief minister of the state of Gujarat, Modi gained experience in foreign affairs in his search for foreign direct investment, and outside investment helped fuel Gujarat’s high rates of economic growth. His several overseas trips to Japan, China and Singapore were prompted by a search for more capital, especially in infrastructure. His annual and widely attended “Vibrant Gujarat” conclaves gave him the opportunity to interact closely with Indian and foreign entrepreneurs. The popular appeal of his campaign narrative applying Gujarat’s growth model on to the larger India stage is perhaps the most significant reason for his massive electoral victory.
Therefore his “Look East” policy as chief minister will likely constitute a key element of his larger foreign policy as prime minister to bring India’s annual economic growth rates back to the 8 to 9 percent range of the last decade. When I met him in July 2013, the goal of increased investment and trade with East and Southeast Asia was the one foreign policy issue he mentioned to me in a long discussion that focused on how to strengthen India’s sluggish economy. The one country he specifically mentioned in this regard was Japan. He and his Japanese counterpart, Shinzo Abe, admire each other and what the other is trying to achieve. Both are ardent nationalists committed to breaking out of a recent history of international passivity, and each sees the other as important in that effort.
2011 File Photo: With member of the CPC, Central Committee, Wang Gang
Reviving the robust growth rates of the past decade also has collateral security advantages. A faster economic growth rate would permit India to speed up its military modernization program at a time when China, with which it has an unresolved border dispute, is engaged in a substantial military buildup along with more assertive efforts to increase its control over adjoining maritime areas also claimed by other countries. Modi secured some Chinese investment for Gujarat and might offer to deepen economic cooperation if China is more cooperative on security issues, especially on questions regarding their disputed borders.
A more secure India is in a better position to leverage its strategic partnership with the United States— and a fast-improving relationship with Japan— to constrain Chinese policy toward India. Regarding leverage with the United States, an economically robust India with a decisive prime minister and a massive popular mandate is in a good position to revive the presently languishing US-Indian relationship. There would then be good reason for American interests— including businesses looking for overseas customers and the jobs that go with that as well as the security establishment looking for reliable partners able to bring about a better balance of power in Asia— to pressure the US administration to move beyond an array of bilateral irritations and take advantage of what India could do to help both the American economy and its security.
A strong India is valuable in itself in building an acceptable balance in Asia. Working together would make more likely former BJP Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s description of the US and India as “natural allies." The BJP’s 2014 campaign manifesto suggests, “We [a BJP government] will create a web of allies to mutually further our interests.We will leverage all our resources and people to play a greater role on the international high table." This projected “web of allies” would almost certainly stop short of security arrangements that would undermine India’s traditional commitment to “strategic autonomy” and an independent foreign policy.
Perhaps anticipating India’s growing strength under Modi, President Barack Obama issued a personal invitation for the prime minister to visit the US. However, the president would have to spell out how India fits into strategic objectives of the US, something that former President George W. Bush and his Secretary of State did so well and that has been missing so far in this administration.
Regarding South Asia, India’s economic growth also has a direct bearing on the Indian goal of remaining the preeminent power in South Asia, a standing now challenged by the growing Chinese economic involvement in the region and its increasingly frequent naval intrusions into the Indian Ocean. India's South Asian neighbours, with the prominent exception of Pakistan, acknowledge that preeminent position of India, though not necessarily with great enthusiasm. Most have tried to use China as leverage against India. That tactic would be harder to achieve with an economically robust India that is their major trading partner and investor— and offering nearby access to higher education, jobs and tourism.
Afghanistan recognizes Indian pre-eminence enthusiastically, perceiving India as a counterweight to Pakistan with its recent history of interference in Afghan affairs. India is already a major source of aid and investment in Afghanistan, and a Modi government would almost certainly sustain that because of the country’s potential as an entry of Indian trade to the Central Asian republics and Russia.
Pakistan desperately needs trade and investment, and an economically robust India offers the best source for both. Modi might well follow in the footsteps of a person he greatly admires, former Prime Minister Vajpayee, and seek a negotiated resolution of the Kashmir question with Pakistan. Like conservative Richard Nixon normalizing with communist China, Modi is in a better position to do this than was Manmohan Singh, his predecessor, as few could charge that the nationalist BJP would be abandoning Indian national interests. At the same time, Modi has publicly warned Pakistan to shun its anti-India attitude. At the first rally after being selected as the party’s prime ministerial candidate, Modi said: “The rulers in Pakistan should resolve that they will not allow terrorist in Pakistan for 10 years, and will not protect terrorists, will not allow its soil to be the breeding ground for terrorists.” Rather, India and Pakistan should work together to bring down the high poverty rates, though Modi is prepared to get tough if provoked, as was Vajpayee.
One advantage for Modi in controlling the foreign policy agenda, when compared to Singh’s coalition government, is his solid parliamentary majority. The BJP alone has more than 10 seats above a majority and its allies have another some 50 seats. Prime Minister Modi can formulate tough policy positions without fearing that an ally would force him to back down, as Mamata Banerjee, head of a regional party in West Bengal, did when she forced the Manmohan Singh government to abandon a river-sharing agreement with Bangladesh. This greater room for manoeuvre allows Modi to be innovative and daring in his foreign policy decisions.
Modi however has relatively little experience in foreign affairs and revealed little about his views in this area during the campaign. He will almost certainly rely heavily on foreign service professionals, though he is likely to pay close attention to outside experts, especially those who bring expertise on trade and investment. Arching over the decision-making process will be Modi’s commitment to nationalism and transformation of India as a consequential actor on the world stage.
Walter Andersen heads the South Asia Program at the School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University. He is the co-author of a definitive study on the Sangh parivar, The Brotherhood in Saffron, and has written extensively on India’s domestic politics and the international politics of South Asia. He served almost 30 years in the US State Department both in the United States and overseas, including India. Rights: Copyright © 2014 The Whitney and Betty MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies at Yale. Courtesy: YaleGlobal Online
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
A full page of verbiage without any substance. Pepper the essay with natural allies, economic growth, investment, development and you have an essay from an expert!
Modi travelled East because he was not so welcome in the West. Is that a basis for foreign policy?
Modi travelled East because he was not so welcome in the West. Is that a basis for foreign policy? - Anwaar
Modi travelled East because he was not so welcome in the West. Is that a basis for foreign policy? - Anwaar
As good as any, if it suits India better.
Modi should either look at this himself or have his team of economists look at it to avoid the mistakes congress did wreaking the economy.
The third item is to detoxify the economy which has the potential to wreck the economy as before. The economic balance for money – creating India is
FISCAL DEFICIT – NET IMPORT = NET PRIVATE SAVINGS.
With a new name for FISCAL DEFICIT = BHAGYALAKSHMI,and NET IMPORT = TRADE DEFICIT, we get, BHAGYALAKSHNI –TRADE DEFICIT = NET PRIVATE SAVINGS. The new name is necessary because “deficit “ scares people.
Now look at the data at
We see BHAGALAKSHNI Is positive downwards = NET SAVINGS in blue upwards at zero trade
Red area = cumulative money spent = blue area = cumulative money transferred to private savings = private wealth .
The green item is TRADE DEFICIT is positive upwards just like BHAGYALAKSHMI and adds to GDP but removes money from the private sector causing less employment but cheaper goods ( mostly the case with USA importing goods from China using printed $ at zero cost). In India’s case it is mostly the other way (slightly), leading to loss of money by devaluation , $ payments and $ interest. The symmetry is EXACT showing the truth of the balance. There is ZERO doubt of the correctness of the balance.
What do we learn from this? Use Bhagyalakshmi as much as possible. There are no limits to it (her).
Stay close to neutral in TRADE . Spend only $ earned in IT to buy oil in $ and use Bhagyalakshmi to fund R &D in technology for the future, such as Thorium molten salt nuclear. In fact fund all future technologies using Bhagyalakshmi , there being no limit to it. Shun FDI and foreign funding of any sort.
The best thing about Bhagyalakshmi is the rapid growth possible. For example, at 30% Bhagyalakshmi, GDP will increase in 10 years to 1.3^10 = 13.8 times the present GDP, quite some growth! NO more poverty!
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT