Three paradigms of India’s International Relations (Part I)
Thursday, July 07, 2016
The three schools of thought that try to gain dominance over the ‘strategic thinking’ of India’s international relations are - Nehruvians, neo-liberals, and hyperrealists.
They agree with each other on some basic assumptions but differ in their central strategic paradigms—the role of war, the nature of adversaries and threats, and the utility of force.
The Common Ground/Basic Assumptions.
All the three paradigms accept that
(i) At the heart of all the international relations is the notion of the sovereign or independent state which vies for its security and well-being of its inhabitants.
(ii) National interests, wielding of power and violence are staples (necessary commodities) of international relations. It is because states eventually have to work for the betterment and in the interest of the state to accrue power in this competitive global world. Violence is also indeed accepted, as a necessary evil which happens in the world where conflicts are bound to happen, but the reason for these conflicts and the states' ability to curtail the violence.
(iii) Power is through to both military and economic capabilities. Although they may differ on the optimum mix/use/combinations of the use of these two paradigms.
Nehruvianism
The précis of the Nehruvian thought is the argument that people can come to understand each other better and can thus sustain peace. They believe that without a supranational body/authority there will always be a threat of war to settle even small conflicts and disputes. They do not ignore the possibility of war altogether, but keep it as their last resort after all the talks, discussions and deliberations have failed.
They believe that preparations for war and balance of power between nations are both ruinous and futile. According to them, arms’ spending only impoverishes the society materially and creates situations where violence is inherent, and it is ultimately futile as such balances of power are very delicate and fragile and have never proven that they prevent mass violence.
Neo-Liberals
Of the three, they are the pragmatic lot which believes that international relations are generally in a state of war and coercion thus plays an important role in such an environment.
Their distinct view in International relations, however, is by comparing the military and economic power of a state. Neo-liberals believe that states pursue not just military but economic power too. They see economic power as more vital as it is the ultimate basis of military strength and because in this ‘interdependent world', where states constantly interact with each other, military force is rendered unusable and ineffective. However, economic power and well-being can supersede military strength.
To gain economic power neo-liberals vouch for free market policies, which imply free trade at home and abroad. This free trade will be the citadel for mutual benefits for nations and thus can help in better understanding between nations. Free trade is to neo-liberals what communication is to Nehruvians.
Hyperrealists
Hyperrealists can be considered the pessimistic lot who view international relations as an endless cycle of repetition in inter-state interactions which is comprised of threats and counter threats. According to them, without a supranational body, which can direct states and nations to how to act and behave, nations are always under an imminent threat of war and a constant balancing power and deterrence. To them, “conflict and rivalry cannot be transformed into peace and friendship (except temporarily as an alliance against a common foe); they can only be managed by the threat and use of violence”.
Thus to them, the foolproof way of achieving peace and stability is through the accumulation of military power and willingness to use force. They reject the idea of Nehruvians and neo-liberals in considering military spending as a denigrator in development as there is not enough evidence to prove that.
Hyperrealists are very critical of flimsy laws, treaties, and agreements. They believe military strength to be the ultimate force that can govern all other aspects of international relations. They invert the neo-liberal relationship between military and economic strength. They boldly proclaim that a state which can build its military power will only safeguard its interest and will build an economy and society that is strong.
0 comments