Beyond The Domestic Front

EMOTION has no place in good foreign policy," says former external affairs minister and Janata Dal leader I.K. Gujral. For years, India's foreign policy has been charted haphazardly, with Pakistan being a prime example of where it has remained reactive.

But Pakistan apart, other foreign policy and security issues have rarely figured in a big way in elections. However, no political party can afford to ignore the instinctive emotions generated by neighbours like Pakistan and issues like the Bomb while formulating its foreign policy. Of late, there has been a greater public awareness, a much deeper and informed debate on foreign policy and defence matters. While domestic issues may dominate the election campaign, political parties do have to answer questions on external affairs.

Should We Make the Bomb?

OF course we will make the Bomb," says Brajesh Mishra, convenor of the BJP's external affairs cell. "Not only that, we will expedite the serial production of Prithvi and make Agni I operational for these missiles. Pakistan already has the Bomb. So why shouldn't we?" What about repercussions? "Who cares? Why should we bother whether steps taken in our national security interests annoy so-and-so nations? What is the worst thing that can happen—the US and its allies imposing sanctions? Apart from the fact that sanctions failed to subdue even a small nation like Cuba, I think most Indians would prefer sanctions to being kicked around by a superpower and even small nations in our own backyard."

The question, therefore, of signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and other discriminatory nuclear regimes does not arise. Says Mishra: "The CTBT and other such pacts are only meant to legitimise the possession of nuclear weapons by a few countries while denying others the right to exercise their choice." External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, however, dismisses the BJP's pledge to reverse India's nuclear policy as "electoral rhetoric." "It is true we have the capability, but we have opted not to manufacture nuclear weapons since we believe in non-proliferation. We did not sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) only because we felt that it would not achieve global disarmament. As for the CTBT, discussions are still on and we will see what happens once they are over. The aims of the CTBT have been supported by India for a long time. But it should ultimately lead to total disarmament."

The Left parties and Janata Dal favour "preserving the nuclear option", and do not want to sign the NPT or the CTBT unless it is linked to time-bound disarmament. CPI(M) Politburo member Sitaram Yechuri and CPI General Secretary A.B. Bardhan concur. "A Hindu Bomb. An Islamic Bomb. When will it stop? The implications of getting into a nuclear race are obviously disastrous for both of us," says Bardhan.

"Making or not making the Bomb is not the issue," adds Gujral. "The Bomb is simply an expression of policy. Do we want to project ourselves as a nuclear power? If so, why? Will we be able to take the heat generated by western powers? Unfortunately, we do not have thinktanks, public or private, to give the Government the in-depth analysis necessary to take such crucial decisions. So the Government instead prefers to emotionalise the issue."

Pakistan and the Kashmir Issue

ALL parties agree that Islamabad is to blame for terrorism in India, mainly Kashmir. But they differ on how to tackle it.

 "Pakistan considers Kashmir to be the core issue and says our total relationship will depend on how the Kashmir issue is resolved, and they also want it to be resolved under the United Nations resolutions," says Mukherjee. "We feel that the Kashmir issue needs to be resolved under the framework of the Simla Agreement signed by then Prime Ministers Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Indira Gandhi. If Pakistan refuses to recognise a pact signed by their own prime minister, what guarantee do we have that any agreement we enter into now will also not be disregarded by the next party that comes to power there?"

The BJP, true to its hawkish form, wants to fight fire with fire. Mishra is quick to point out that no party in the Opposition can say what precise steps it will take to tackle Pakistan, but asserts that any move made by Pakistan against India, covert or overt, would be met with an immediate and forceful reaction. The party manifesto warns that it would not even hesitate to launch a cross-border strike against militants who disrupt peace in India.

The BJP is also keen to finish fencing of the border with Pakistan. "Why should we turn a blind eye to the fact that we have an extremely hostile neighbour?"

 But Bardhan and Yechuri are hopeful that stepped-up cultural and economic ties with Pakistan may in time make for better political ties. "Our ties with Pakistan have  to go beyond the government—it has to be a people-to-people contact," says Yechuri.

Gujral, however, would prefer to maintain the status quo until a national security council or similar body gives him enough specialised inputs from experts. "In fact, the main problem with our foreign policy is that it is reactive rather than proactive. Why should I have to wait for The New York Times or the Washington Post to tell me that Pakistan has or does not have a bomb? And then decide accordingly? The only way to have a proactive policy is to have experts feeding an institutionalised memory, instead of the generalised system that we now have, where a person knowing just the language of a country is considered a specialist on that country."

Other Neighbours

FOR the CPI's Bardhan, defending the underdog socialist and developing countries against the hegemonistic imperialist powers is top priority. "Also, we must have a more brotherly (not big) attitude towards our neighbours. Trade with Bangladesh and Nepal, for instance, has to improve. To cite a small example: The jeeps in Bangladesh are either Japanese or American. Does that mean the jeeps made by Mahindra and Mahindra in India are not good enough? Or does that mean that we do not consider Bangladesh to be a good market?" he says. On China, Yechuri feels resolving the border dispute should be given top priority as it would release a lot of defence expenditure for other developmental purposes.

The BJP, however, feels that borders with Bangladesh have to be sealed to prevent infiltration, and that normalisation of ties can only take place after refugees stop pouring in. The manifesto also notes Beijing's supply of arms to Pakistan with concern.

As for the Congress, Mukherjee proudly points to the signing of the treaty on the development of the Mahakali river with Nepal and the granting of the Tin Bigha corridor to Bangladesh as events which would help foster better ties. But the water dispute, a sensitive issue in Bangladesh, remains unresolved and the minister did not have anything to say on the issue.

The United States

FOR the Leftists, the US remains the big bully, particularly after the collapse of the USSR. Friendliness combined with a stiff opposition to the imposition of the American view of the new world order is how Yechuri describes the CPI(M) stand. Besides, "what purpose do the joint naval exercises with the US serve? Who are we supposedly practising against? What about the docking rights for US warships at Marmagoa? How do we know that they are not equipped with nuclear missiles?" asks Bardhan.

"The US is the largest foreign investor in our country," retorts Mukherjee. "We may disagree over various issues, but that should not prevent us from working together on issues that we do agree on."

As for the BJP, while promising to base ties with the US on "mutual respect and congruence of interests", the manifesto notes that "US policy for this region continues to suffer from lack of vision and disregards India's political and security interests." Moreover, it notes that the US must realise that there cannot be any parity in Indo-US and Pakistan-US relations.

International and Regional Fora

ONCE again, all parties agree that India needs to play a more assertive role in Mukherjee: "APEC membership has been frozen for a long time. But we are participating in three APEC working groups, trade, investment and tourism. We are a full dialogue partner in ASEAN. We also have had a very good response from other nations in our efforts to get a non-permanent seat and permanent seat in the Security Council, and the results of this will be seen in the October-November voting for the non-permanent members."

Yechuri, however, notes that entry into the Security Council without veto rights, as suggested by some western powers, would be meaningless. Bardhan is equally vehement about India playing a more assertive role in NAM, which needs to be realigned not only to face the post-Cold War realities, but also to give India a platform to stand up to the imperialist powers.
 While its manifesto pledges to get India a berth in the Security Council, the BJP, however, feels that India "should not go begging for membership in any of these fora," but see that it is invited to join on its own merit. Says Mishra: "The moment these groupings realise that it would be in their own economic and political interests to invite India, one of the major untapped markets of the region, they will come to us. Why should we have to go begging?"