In recent months, there were two different posts trying to analyse the thought process of the Foreign Minister Mr. S. Jaishankar. In the first piece, there was an attempt to understand what many called sermonizing the US. It was viewed as an unnecessary provocation given the Indian preoccupation with China. In the second piece, there was an attempt to analyse the invocation of Mahabharata in Indian strategic thought process. This was a significant moment since this was one of the rare occasions when Indian strategic thinkers have sought to create the underpinnings of the policy through Indian history and civilization. His book ‘The Indian Way Strategies for an Uncertain World (Harper Collins 2020) is already being hailed as one of the significant interventions in literature on foreign policy and strategic affairs. The book as mentioned in the previous post is the one of the first books that seeks to trace Indian strategic thought in ingenious history and mythology. The current post will seek to examine the book in the context of the discussions on the drivers of nationalism, something elaborated in Chapter V of the book.
The chapter titled Of Mandarins and Masses exposes the dichotomy between the policy makers and the aspirations of the masses. It perhaps is rooted in the motivation differentials that exist at the top and those in the masses. Furthermore, the policy Mandarins of the West tend to view the strategic dimensions of India and the developing world through a very narrow prism which they have constructed and get it validated it through the elites. They rarely go beneath the surface to the masses and thus often get caught on the wrong foot when it comes to dissecting the policy prescriptions and the compact between masses and government in the developing or the emerging world. Leave along the Western experts, Lutyens Delhi invariably finds itself on the wrong foot each time when it comes to predicting the behaviour of the Indian street. it is therefore not surprising to find Dr. Jaishankar arguing the need to find the right balance between the societal dynamics and the mechanics of policy making. In reconciling it however, Dr. Jaishankar believes a cost attached to this process and the cost is the political credibility. To the long standing veteran of Indian foreign policy making, the obvious challenge is capturing Indian nationalism in the framework of policy making. The process is made inherently complex given it has to address simultaneously the challenges of history, identity, interests and politics. Besides, he argues the question about the welfare of the diaspora. The rest of the relationship to Jaishankar is an associated question.
As one factors the element of nationalism in the policy making calculus, it is important to identify the drivers of nationalism. Indubitably, the trend points towards increasing shrillness and expression for cultural identities while furthering stronger nationalist narratives. Rare are the exceptions in the contemporary world today. In contrast to Fukuyama’s assertion of end of history, Jaishankar posits a return to history either on account of aspiration or anxiety. Chinese expression is an outcome of its developed capabilities. In fact, as Jaishankar points out, Russia, Turkey, Iran etc. have factored in as if it is a natural output. Global trends influence domestic debates wherein the focus and increasing penetration of cosmopolitanism is held responsible for loss of livelihoods. In fact, the Western expression of nationalism camouflaged as patriotism by President Trump is an outcome wherein the globalization has come to haunt the Western economic fulcrum. The shift in the jobs overseas have led to the loss of livelihoods across the Western world and thus there is build up to the anti-globalization in these countries. Ironically, the backlash against globalization was essentially in the developing world wherein it was seen as backdoor entry of colonialism. Currently the changing immigration patterns influencing the societal changes in Europe and the US are increasingly influencing the debates on nationalist narratives and national identities.
As one examines the contemporary narratives, varying reasons are responsible for nationalist narratives gaining steam. It was essentially nationalism that was the foundation for independence movements against colonial powers. In Europe and US it is a reaction to the losses due to globalization. In Europe increased powers to Brussels meant that the domestic capitals had less and less. This was essentially played out in the battle between London and Brussels culminating in Brexit. Britain might have ruled the world yet they could not sustain or survive the rule from Brussels. In the context of other European countries, including Netherlands, Denmark among others it is the chaos that manifested post Brexit vote that deterring them from a path of confrontation and retreat from Brussels. In China it is a sign of assertion of its global economic power. In Japan it was an assertion to recapture the lost strategic depth post-World War II. South Korea too witnessing a resurgence partly due the economic power being able to strengthen its position. Across the world, narratives are shifting seamlessly towards nationalism. What Trump pointed as patriotism is a signal for power play to many countries.
In Turkey, it is the revisionist aspirations that drive nationalism. While Turkish decline might have started pre-World War I, the Great War only hastened the same and redrew the map of Europe and Middle East as we know it. As the late foreign minister Mr. Jaswant Singh pointed out, the world is yet to come to terms with redrawn geography of the World War I. It is no wonder, Europe is yet to come to terms with the loss of power and colonies post-World War II. The narratives in the West that keep getting planted against India is basically linked to this denial that India could not merely stand on its own but flourish and prosper. The nationalist narratives often serve mobilizing people against another country while protecting the regime something being seen in Iran and observed also in countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar among others.
As one decodes the rise of nationalism, it therefore becomes pertinent to understand in depth the different drivers of nationalism. It is an interplay of several forces many collaborative and many conflicting. There are variables that are interactional and there are that are intersectional. It is in this context, the book by Dr.Jaishankar holds key significance. These drivers need a detailed engagement which shall be done in the subsequent posts delving into each factor at depth.
Thoughts on Theory and Practice 