Context:

• The developments of February 3, 2021 marked the crystallisation and popular production of a new posture in India’s engagement with the world — that of hard sovereignty.
• The posture delivers a firm message: outsiders have no stake in India’s internal affairs, especially as it undergoes profound and rapid changes, some of which are deeply disturbing.
• The posture is unprecedented and dangerous; we will do disservice to ourselves if we endorse it. And policy informed by it will expose inconsistencies in our external relations.

 

New posture:

• Over the past 18 months, the establishment had been regularly fielding international criticism and expressions of concern on domestic developments.
• One of the elements in its reactions was the assertion that these were India’s internal matters which its democratic polity was capable of resolving.
• It expressed official India’s displeasure at social media remarks by well-known figures, including a global celebrity and an activist, on the response to the farmers’ protests.
• The claim was made that ‘vested interests’ had tried to derail the protests and sully India’s international reputation.
• ‘Celebrities and others’ were advised to ascertain facts before commenting on the matter and to resist the temptation of sensationalising it.

 

Concern:

• India has jealously guarded its sovereignty since independence. However, its past sovereignty posture was deployed towards progressive goals.
• It was a bulwark against great power bullying and it asserted the autonomy of weaker nations.
• In contrast, the new posture seeks to fend off international criticism of unpleasant domestic developments. While this may suit hyper-nationalism, it will harm national interest.

 

India's global game:

• First, India’s global game of status seeking and strategic influence plays out on the turf of liberal democracies.
• The Prime Minister’s claim of having enhanced India’s international prestige has had as its ace reference point the recognition offered to him.
• On the strategic front, five of India’s key partners in the Indo-Pacific context are democracies: Japan, Australia, the U.S., the U.K., and France. Four of these are liberal and western.
• Democracies measure each other by higher standards. This explains the pushback of varying degrees from German Chancellor Angela Merkel, U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and even Mr. Trump in the past two years.
• It also explains the concerns expressed by western legislators and human rights bodies. If the establishment adopts a hard sovereignty posture soaring on the wings of strident domestic sentiments, it would encounter greater diplomatic friction. India’s global game would also be adversely impacted.

 

Siege mentality:

• Second, hard sovereignty invariably tends towards national isolationism and siege mentality. Chances are high it would further strengthen the national-scale parochialism being encouraged by the rhetoric of Aatmanirbharta (self-reliance). Such trends have an uneven impact.
• Those who championed hard sovereignty would soon be at an elite sporting event in a western capital. But they would have left their fellow citizens beleaguered.

 

Susceptibility of neighbours:

• Finally, it would increase the susceptibility of our neighbourhood policy to criticism on the grounds of inconsistency. Consider the CAA, 2019.
• Although the letter of the amendment doesn’t state it, the accompanying public discourse has carried an indictment of India’s Muslim-majority neighbours insofar as their treatment of minorities is concerned.
• Consider also how it would undercut the effectiveness of what is principally a tactical arsenal even if it is grounded in facts: pointing out the dismal human rights situation in Balochistan to the liberal democratic world.

 

Conclusion:

India’s reputation had long been the soft power capital it deployed to meet its hard power shortfall as it pursued its international ambitions. As that reputation suffers, the country’s options lessen and effectiveness shrinks. Scarcely a welcome development for a ‘leading power’. We must counter interventionist remarks coming from vested interests. But we must be discerning as well, for some critics may mean well.

 

https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/dangers-of-hard-sovereignty/article33796954.ece