Non-Alignment 2.0 need of the hour

The three national security advisors of Independent India gathered on one platform this week to release Non-Alignment 2.0, a document brought out by a group of analysts and policy makers. It was an interesting event, largely because the very term ‘non-alignment’ seemed to make all the NSAs uneasy as they either sought to distance themselves from the document, or actually trashed it as impractical.

It is after a long time one has read a document brought out by people close to the establishment — including former foreign secretary Shyam Saran — that actually uses a term that has been described repeatedly by both the NDA and UPA as ‘irrelevant’ and a ‘dead concept.’ Clearly there is a realisation that India needs to be more subtle and non-partisan in her foreign policy, rebuild relations with old friends in West Asia and Africa, and instead of relying just on hard power and economic growth, look at classical diplomacy based on old-fashioned values to strengthen relations with the world.

There is a great deal that has been left unsaid in the document that explores India’s relations with Pakistan and China, but is not as specific and detailed in analysing what needs to be done regarding relations with the US. Israel has been totally left out, with India and the Palestinian struggle clearly not in the sights of Non-Alignment 2.0.

At the same time, the document is bold in parts, with the section on Internal Security actually going on to describe the state as a ‘predator’. ‘In many parts of the country, the state has a history of a protracted and brutal suppression of violence and abuses of human rights.’

Non-Alignment 2.0 is important for what it says as these arguments are rarely heard in the corridors of power, and not for what it has left out, which is a great deal as well.

It was therefore not a surprise that the current NSA Shiv Shankar Menon to a lesser extent, and the two former NSAs MK Narayanan and Brajesh Mishra had deep reservations about the document. More so as they have all served to take India away from the path of non-alignment into the lap of the US, weaken her voice in the developing world, and turn many an old friend into foes. Menon was his usual obfuscating self, saying little even as he admitted to having attended some of the group’s meetings before he became NSA. He did recognise the importance of non-alignment even as he made it clear that he had reservations about parts of the document. He did not elaborate but clearly did not want to be seen heartily supporting an exercise that goes against South Block’s current conventional wisdom.

Narayanan and Mishra’s interventions were narrow and limited, both sounding outdated and almost phobic in their responses. Narayanan made it a point to cross swords with Saran directly, attributing certain sentences from the document to him. His presentation was more focused on internal security, as being a former IB chief, he has found it difficult to move away from left wing extremism and Islamic extremism. He was not happy with the authors’ use of the phrase ‘sense of surge in the North East’ terming it a ‘case of overkill.’ Despite being the governor of West Bengal, clearly Narayanan has not had the time to visit the North East to see how much worse the situation has become.

Sometimes, silence is more dangerous than violence, as it has a lethal potential that can erupt without warning. The former NSA was also not happy with the description of India as a ‘hedging power’, replacing it with the term ‘bridging power.’ Again a case of wishful thinking as this is a role that India has long since discarded.

Mishra, as expected, went many steps further as the politician in him came to the fore. A votary of hard power, he trashed non-alignment with a snigger, and made it clear that the only choice before India was to be with the US. The former NSA, who had held many a briefing lauding his government under prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee for the progress it had made with China, did not hesitate to point out that there could be no friendship between India and China. Using clever words he said, “Non-alignment implies protecting your country’s interests abroad and preventing the (powers) abroad from interfering in your country.” And this he said could be done only through a strong alliance with the US.

The document and its group of authors stood isolated; not embraced but almost shunned by the national security advisors of India. The conclusion stressing the need for marrying idealism with policy; of maintaining a liberal, secular and constitutional democracy; of upholding the ideals of the nationalist movement clearly did not make sense to the NSAs who have in the last 10 years pursued policies alien to Indian national interests and sensitivities.

Probably Narayanan and Mishra balked at a document that said: ‘India already has enormous legitimacy because of the ideological legacies its nationalist movement bequeathed to it. But this legitimacy once frittered away cannot be easily recovered.

India should aim not just at being powerful, it should set new standards for what the powerful must do.’ Theirs was a natural response, for in the last decade or more that is all the advisors for national security have done, frittered away the national consensus and India’s strength.

The writer is a senior New Delhi-based journalist