INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY AND FEDERALISM

DR C. D. DESHMUKH

The Indian attitude towards peace has been strongly influenced by Gandhian concepts of non-violence in the first place and, secondly, by the directions of its foreign relations policy of the late Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru whose passion for peace was well-known both within and outside the nation. The Gandhian theory and practice of non-violence, however, furnished no sure guarantee in the concrete cases for application that arose since the advent of independence. It was found in practice impossible to apply the theory of non-violence as practised for the achievement of freedom to the peaceful settlement of disputes and to the problems of peace-keeping. The principal reason for this shortcoming was the difficulty of deciding in any given case who was aggressor and who was the defender of legitimate interests. India’s experience in regard to Kashmir, and later in regard to hostilities with China and with Pakistan furnished therefore no guidance in its conduct of external affairs for suggesting a sure way to peace.

The late Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s foreign policy was centered round the idea of non-alignment, which he helped to develop and to which he adhered unwaveringly throughout the tenure of his high office. The concept had some obvious implications and assumptions such as the existence of political strife between power blocs. The threat of violence was primarily posed by the rivalries of two mutual hostile power blocs whose purpose was to strengthen themselves each in his own fashion and with all available resources in order to draw the uninvolved nations into the fold of their respective blocs. It was believed that such alignment only raised the level of the cold war and made the chances of attaining peace still more remote.

A concrete shape was given to this concept in the early fifties by the enunciation of Panch Sheel doctrine. This happy result stemmed from the essential ingredient of amity between the two large countries uninvolved, viz., India and China. It is no wonder that the doctrine proved to be short-lived in its practical application owing to the deterioration of the relations between the two countries towards the end of fifties and the early sixties. It has now become clear that neither non-alignment nor Panch Sheel can serve to abate, much less to remove, the fundamental rivalries that have led to the continuous escalation or the balance of terror between the principal protagonists of the cold war.

In the result, attention has in the last few years turned India to other possible means of augmenting the chances of the preservation of peace. These are concerned either with the idea of strengthening Public International Law or the actual operation, with minor changes of the U. N. Charter or a deliberate and extensive revision of that Charter so as to furnish the basis for a World Government. In this context there is no great hope entertained of evolving a Public International Law which would be a dependable guarantee of world peace. The enunciation of such a Law would obviously imply the existence of a world body capable of enacting it. A Law, in its formal sense, cannot in other words be made available merely by an informal or a voluntary agreement among nations.

As regards the improvement and the more assured operation of the existing U. N. Charter, perhaps with minor amendments, the recent record has shown that very much depends on changing factors such as the strength and composition of the General Assembly, the Constitution of the Security Council with its provisions for veto and calibre, personality and prestige of the Secretary-General. It may be said without fear of contradiction that the efforts of the U. N. for the preservation of peace have had only an uncertain and partial success and that some problems of peace-keeping have proved to be incapable of solution through formal means.

Sometime back a seminar was held at the India International Centre, New Delhi, on ‘World Peace through World Law’. Here the study disclosed three dominant themes. In the first place, there seemed to be a unanimity that the Clark-Sohn proposals are the result of deep thinking and mature scholarship and are capable of serving as a basis for any international endeavour towards establishing a peaceful world. Secondly, most commentators fell that the world can effectively move towards the goal of World Government set by the learned authors only if the outmoded conceptions of state sovereignty and independence are radically revised. Thirdly, while they viewed the proposals as a convenient working hypothesis and as a reliable meeting point, they also pointed out that before any concerted attempt is made towards putting them into effect the big powers must arrive at a denominator in terms of a declaration of common goals. In other words it was felt that the big powers must first iron out their differences at the political plane so that a common base may be established for creative achievements.

In the meanwhile, thinking continues in regard to the evolution of effective arrangements within the four corners of the existing U. N. Charter for the avoidance of war, as for instance in regard to the constitution of an International Force.

As Quincy Wright, a Visiting Professor of International Law at the Indian School of International Studies, pointed out in his article that procedures of the United Nations be further developed to assure an immediate cease-fire in case of international hostilities, immediate U. N. intervention in civil strife if there is danger that it will escalate into international hostilities, and deliberate efforts to develop recommendations likely to result in agreement to settle a dispute endangering international peace and security; and that preparation for a peaceful world would be made by development of international law adapting it to changing conditions, by extension of the jurisdiction of the World Court to interpret that Law and facilitate peaceful settlement of disputes and by establishment of observers and peace forces immediately available to the United Nations for maintaining its cease-fire orders and supporting its necessary interventions in civil strife. With such developments the United Nations may influence the peoples and governments to abstain from war, settle disputes, relax tensions, disarm, and co-operate to advance human welfare and contentment.

Should these hopes be realised the world would have taken a very significant step forward towards the preservation of peace through the existing United Nations Charter. The official policy of the Government of India would seem to favour this step forward and there is no evidence that officially they have given any thought to the alternative of World Federalism as the only reliable guarantee for peace. There has, however, been some unofficial discussion, although fitfully and not in great depth, on this alternative at a symposium held 3-4, years ago on “Organisation and future U.N.” One of the participants, a journalist, expressed her view that as late Secretary-General Hammarskjold grew in office he began to believe in the possibility of a World Government.

But as the U. N. grew stronger in numbers. Hammarlkjold saw that the smaller countries were numerically in a position to outvote the bigger, as the Charter of the U. N. was dedicated to the principle of political equality of its members, that is, one vote for one nation. And that did not seem right. He argued that the Big Powers with their superior military and economic strength cannot be expected automatically to accept majority, verdicts. Nor could the great powers be permitted to set them-selves above, or disregard the views of the majority. Some kind of balance had to be struck, but where and how? This was the question which was troubling Hammarskjold, before his death.

The concept of the equality of nations, however, had to be preserved in principle. As he put it almost lyrically: “There is a new situation today. You have to recognise that you cannot dictate to other nations. It is more difficult to see your brother in a slave or a master. It is easier to see him in somebody with whom you have to live without giving or taking orders.”

The entry of China into the Nuclear Club would seem to have shaken Indian non-official opinion and would appear to have put a wet blanket on the hope entertained that a World Federation would be within the limits of practical politics, especially in view of the continuance of unfriendly relations between India and China. It should be mentioned here that opinion has already been split on the non-official side in regard to the necessity or desirability of India becoming a nuclear power for offence in view of the threat posed by China. The official Indian attitude has so far been against such a step, but it is now wavering in the face of the supervisory powers in this respect sought to be assigned to the Nuclear Club by the non-proliferation treaty.

Back