India’s European dilemma as a Vishwa Shishya- Strategic delusions & idea-centrism issues

Abhivardhan   

The year 2020 marks the shedding of ideological obscuration amidst democracies. Geopolitics and the face of ‘realpolitik’ is undoubtedly at the centre of many problems and avenues that the world accordingly faces. India’s dilemma therefore – is different. In many aspects, India has a fortunate position, unlike EU and the US, which we must never ignore. In terms of constitutionalism, India can learn the social coherency and the urge of credibility towards its institutions from Europe, while in terms of the of the dynamic nature of a democracy and its three sections, it can certainly learn from the US. In terms of strategy and information warfare, India needs to learn from Israel and Russia. In addition, in terms of harnessing the global supply chain and enabling the middle class in India to grow, it can learn, if not inspire from China, Bangladesh and Japan. However, to learn is different from the art, handiness and clarity to adopt or implement. For years, India has been a different ‘Vishwa Shishya’ (term coined by Harsh Gupta, one of the authors of ‘A New Idea of India’), where even the understanding of the term is not as literal as the term even depicts. Vishwa Shishya means someone who can be a ‘disciple’ of the world, in a rigorous, focused and devoted manner. For a constitutional cum civilizational state like India, the internal and exterior annals of learning and relationship towards the world itself have been crispy, confusing and improving. No disciple is perfect, and it is certain that there are strategic, constitutional and economic backlashes that are faced in general. Therefore, even if Europeans or Americans see India differently in a technocratic or Newtonian manner, the depiction itself is not complete, neither absolute.

Even if you see the 6 stages of Indian Foreign Policy as beautifully explained by India’s External Affairs Minister, Dr S Jaishankar in the 4th Ramnath Goenka Lecture, 2019 – then you will find that the 2nd and 3rd phases of vulnerability, recovery and regional assertion flipped India’s earlier ideological connectivity with Nehruvian Socialism (political and economic). The social faction of Nehruvian Socialism met its gradual end in the 4th and 5th phases, when economic growth and balancing ties with the US, China and Russia was important. Despite the fact that in the matters of politics, society and economics, there are still some percolations or strands of degeneracy of India’s civilizational ethos, there is no doubt that a sense of revival is imminent, which will be more or less a struggle, for not a long time. The current stage of energy diplomacy, which India stepped in since 2014, has been adventurous – and is reaching the logical conclusion of its beginning in 2020, which was fast because of the expose of the global conditions due to one pandemic. However, the impact is still not much significant, because rebounding and strategic protectionism will drive countries to become competitive. India and ASEAN countries are at the verge of the same. In fact, towards the likelihood or non-likelihood of Joe Biden winning the US Presidency, India is seeking an outreach towards the Democratic Party with the hope that the US is still bipartisan. Under Joe Biden, this would seem calculatedly true (if he wins), and this therefore must not be ignored. Considering the mess that the US Presidential Elections 2020 have become, and the Democratic Party’s deep divisions within, it is clear that the benefit of doubt over the transformation of the realpolitik conditions of the international community will be now central to two important regions – the Indo-Pacific up to the Far East & continental Europe. The article attempts to declutter India’s dilemma towards Europe over two important issues – strategic delusions and idea-centrism.

 

India and Europe – Moderate & Natural Partners

There is no doubt in asserting that India and Europe are moderate natural partners, in areas such as trade and environment. A report from the European Parliament also suggests that the potential impact of an EU-India trade agreement at between €8 billion and €8.5 billion gains from increased trade for both sides, with a more noteworthy upsurge of trade gains likely towards the Indian side. The study also refers to additional potential gains from enhanced coordination on the provision of global public goods, such as environmental standards. Even in culture, Europe and India are not far, but closer in a reasonable manner. The EU in India organizes cultural fests with the Indian Government and participates in the dialogues and consultations openly. Even Ambassadors from European countries are open to participate with India reasonably. However, the real issue begins when India and Europe, at social levels, clash. This clash is not civilizational, but has both ideological and cultural aspects, which exists, and is not affably even noticed properly by the European community, if is done by the Indian community. The problems, which affect the coherence of cultural-personal relationships between India and Europe are ethnocentrism and Eurocentrism.

There is no doubt to expect that Europe and India do share some common worldviews, which in general is not so close, if can be near to coherency. Whenever we estimate the US’s views on India, we often jump on Hinduphobia and the Kashmir question/affinity towards Pakistan or kindness towards the Muslim Brotherhood, which is merely a limited angle to see the trajectory of Indo-US relations. Similarly, the argument kept that ethnocentrism and Eurocentrism exists as a problem is not merely a monolith of differences over religion and human rights, because the issue of Hinduphobia, like in the US, is more related to the lack of awareness and consciousness in culture policy and diplomacy, which very few Non-Resident Indians reflect in the Americas and Europe, unfortunately. The problems that India as a civilizational state faces, are definitely real, but cannot be overestimated, nor exaggerated. Same applies to those people, who exaggerate Eurocentric world views and act ethnocentric over India and its internal political and social problems – like they intend to do in the case of Africa as well. This exaggeration, has been at peak in the US for long, if not is so much in Europe, where a set of people taint the Indian worldview unreasonably. India’s communication and counter-information strategy has been weak and unfit, which is not completely owed to the Indian Government’s mistakes in dealing with information warfare from the West. In fact, the burden must be shared by the Eurocentric and ethnocentric Western media, which has not been non-partisan for a long time, despite the fact that colonialism and cold war mentality are over. Ideological obscuration, therefore is not the basis of European worldview, in completion, but it also does not mean that Europe cannot suffer from the lasting effects of lack of cultural sensitivity and mobility. The mobile and supportive behaviour of the Central and Eastern European bloc towards India has been a positive act, and will help foster better Indo-EU relations. Inviting center-right and few far-right MEPs to visit the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir in 2019 is not an ideological move, because Eurocentrism is not just the disease of those leaders, who are socialists (even libertarians and conservatives have a lack of awareness of India’s cultural sensitivity and mobility) & so, even Christian conservatives, and libertarians could have made mistakes in understanding the Indian state. Fortunately, the feedback was positive enough, which is a significant win for India. Even the uproar over the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 was unfounded – because the classification of a particular set of people given for the purpose of citizenship into India, does not bar people from earning citizenship into India through legal means, which is naturalization (for outsiders). Unless the Citizenship Amendment Rules of 2020 or 2021 come, no absoluteness over the same matter can be reckoned by the European side over the constitutionality of the Act, and thus, even this claim is unfounded.

Strategic Delusions and its Percolation: Now, why ethnocentrism and Eurocentrism is not myopic to the Indian Government, but to Europeans? Is awareness the only reason? Perhaps not. Europe is very much open in terms of engagement and diversification, and blaming a set of Far-Left/Far-Right political leaders is just an unreasonable method to deal with the problems India and Europe have had for some time. In this century, the European Union needs a defence arrangement (to end the over-reliance on NATO for good), to reckon a non-defeatist and science-security-centric technology leadership (which is being fought among China, the US, India and ASEAN, to name some) and finally, a relevant global competition policy (which is urgent considering the expansionist designs of China in Eastern Europe and the Scandinavian region). In all 3, the situation is quite not much grown, and the migration crisis has already caused some Central and European States to ignore the EU over migration. Although migration is an issue of zero concern to India, there is no doubt that India is eager enough to be patient to seek a revitalized and transformed Europe, which can balance populism and political correctness, like Emmanuel Macron over Islamist extremism, which Angela Merkel could never be able to do so. India’s arduous support of Macron and his diplomatic and personal dignity is not a populist anti-Muslim move, but a clear indication of what reformed multilateralism looks like.

Also, the US is more damaged as an institutional democracy, which is owed to the 12 years of over-personalization of the sanguine nature of the Presidency it relies on. Frankly, it is a bipartisan failure, of both the Democrats and the Republicans, but considering that the Republican party intends to move forward and not endorse Donald J Trump’s rants, they will never ignore the achievements of the 45th President – but rather capitalize on the same reasonably. The Democrats however, have some really bad years ahead due to their stance over the Critical Race Theory, and the Black Lives Matter campaigning, which in no way helps the minorities. In fact, as per the AP VoteCast survey on the US Presidential Elections 2020, around 35% Muslims voted for Donald J Trump, including a more diverse coalition of women, Latino and black voters. The white vote has plummeted, which is insanely interesting. Also, the House Republicans have gained amassed benefits in their numbers, even if they cannot grab the majority this year, which shows that the end of a Trump Presidency, will undeniably lead to a degeneracy and decay of the democratic socialists and cultural Marxists, who dominated the image of the Democratic Party for long, and destroyed their credibility around the world. The relationship between democratic socialists and cultural Marxists in the US & Europe is also not unfounded. However, considering France and Germany’s unison over resisting political Islam and China, which will be significant in Europe in the coming years, the political disease of eurocentrism is set to be cured better, thus making the European political faction cautious about their worldviews. A reasonable definition of anti-Semitism also has been adopted by the Global Imams Council, which is a reasonable move, not only in the eyes of UAE and Saudi Arabia, but also the European right, which has to stand up reasonably. European secularism will also take a dramatic turn. France’ Macron is a perfect balance between the Far-Left and the Far-Right in Europe, and before Chancellor Merkel leaves world politics, she will never be intending to taint the Christian Democratic Union in Germany, and therefore empowering the Far-Right Alternative for Germany. Thus, the four years of Trump Presidency, even if have been turbulent for Europe and its institutional cum ideological values, have given a sense of learning to Europe to expose itself to a stronger and resilient worldview, which is coherent.

 

Additionally, Europeans are now realizing that they need to bridge and change their policies over three significant countries – India, Russia and China. With India, Europe is set for a trade deal any year soon, in clear opposition to the treachery of the values of European liberalism (or libertarianism) committed by the Chinese Communist Party led by Xi Jinping. Taiwan cannot be ignored anymore, as not only the US, but some EU member-states are leaning to endorse the leadership there in a moderate and transforming resistance against the Chinese wolf-warrior diplomacy. With Russia, the range of complexity depends on the state of Central Asia, where if Europe and NATO do not control Turkey (supported by Pakistan), then the US might step in assertively. However, it is in the best interest of Europe to sanction and take action against Reccip Tayyip Erdogan. Eastern Europe and Central Asia are the umbilical cords to the geopolitical transformation of defence partnerships between India and EU member-states. India already is in course for defence partnerships with Kazakhstan under the nose of China, as Eurasian Times reported. Thus, a better vision of multiculturalism – which started from Europe (not the US) in the 1990s can be presented to the international community, which will be welcomed heartily by the Indian Government.

IDEA-CENTRISM AND ITS DIMENSIONS

India shares the values of multiculturalism that Europe concedes to. Secularism and multiculturalism, despite being amazingly different, are essential to India and Europe in general. Indian secularism is not based on Semitic faiths such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism (although several attempts were made in India to impose the same, unfortunately by the Indian National Congress and the Nehruvian socialists for years). Instead, India’s vision of secularism, in full agreement with Rajeev Mantri and Harsh Gupta’s A New Idea of India – is composed of respect and devotion towards the civilizational heritage and diversity of India’s geography and cultures, which cannot be limited to the term called ‘Hindu Nationalism’ & the idea of coherence instead of artificial tolerance towards different Semitic and non-Semitic faiths, frankly. India has always welcomed people of different faiths, and will do, whenever it feels reasonable enough. Also, the dimension of sovereignty in India, is not ideological, but pragmatic, based on (1) a feudal governance model, which is often misinterpreted as ‘quasi-federalism’ under Indian Constitutional Law (since the Government of India Act of 1935 and other colonial adoptions from the British is still present in India) and (2) central to the concept of competence, and not power (which the Western and Indian media represents worse on unfounded claims). Kautilya, the architect of the Mauryan empire always embraced the idea of competence over a micro-managed servility towards power as a corrupt concept. It was Ashoka who destroyed this empire, because of his micro-management of governance and the eulogization of his identity as a King equivalent to that of a God, which never happens commonly in the history of Indic kings. Celebrating the cult and its diversity is not unfounded, neither unreasonable for the Indian people, because of years of mistreatment of the Indian state and the judiciary of the religious, social and cultural institutions of the Indic community. For example, the word Dharma is not equivalent to the word ‘religion’ and ‘Jati’ is not the English word ‘caste’, which unfortunately, has been a colonial misrepresentation of the Indic culture. Thus, the feudal system of constitutionalism from the British had its own reasonability in India, which now can be effectively transformed to a federal but responsible and accountable system of governance. India knows it very well that dominance in the information age is based on decentralization, not over-centralization of the state machinery. This inspiration is not directly American, but European – because if we see the laws (passed and in process to be proposed or passed in the Indian Parliament), many of them on information technology, AI and fintech are directly inspired from Europe. The Personal Data Protection Bill of 2019 is definitely inspired from the General Protection Data Regulation with some Indian modification of course, for example. Therefore, there is no doubt that India is eager to learn from Europe, its old friend. What Europe should do to express gratitude is to transform and revitalize its approach to strategize some limited identitarian European values, which are universal yet pragmatic, which starts with the European Parliament and the European Commission’s leaderships. Center-right, libertarian and Center-left politicians are better than Far-Right and Far-Left parties, and even when we see the current state of the COVID19 pandemic, we will find surveys proving that the Far-Right, for example, is suffering pretty well, especially in Germany and Austria. Center-right parties will have a better stronghold, but if their public health policies are not reasonable, then mere populism or assurance will not help the people. On the other hand, in India, the Culture-conservative and governance-libertarian governments in India (state-level) are doing significantly well in their efforts to curb the COVID-19 virus and its spread. Some socialist governments in India are not doing well, like West Bengal and Kerala, while the Central Government in India is well-prepared in contact tracing, decreasing the number of deaths and even handling the quarantine zones, which no one would have ever expected from a country like India, whose health infrastructure is a serious mess. India has been cooperative and helpful towards ASEAN countries, like what European Union tries to do with the Middle East and even some non-EU member-states as well as the Commission did since March 2020.

Thus, it is clear that the pair of India and Europe can certainly do better in terms of cooperation and transformation of the global economy, global health and environment system & the world of multilateralism, instead of the pair of India and the US. No one should ignore the potential of an Indo-US cooperation – but over relying on a skewed democracy like the US is often risky for the resilience of the Indian democracy. India can adopt and maintain the transformation of QUAD to its logical beginning as of now, as it presides the UN Security Council, the Shanghai Cooperation, G20 and other significant forums along with the Executive Bodies of the World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization. It is however also in the best interest of Europe, like India to have a meaningful and not over-reliant relationship with the US. Instead, Europe can look towards the global south and transform a resilient and meaningful network of partnerships swiftly, in the interest of peace and security, and so, a reasonable model of economic development. The US will be significant in the coming years to combat ideological obscuration and culture wars, which India and Europe would never to intrude much. Thus, one US election cannot decide in absolutism, as to how the state of the world will be – as the impact of the changes made by President Trump will help more, and damage less, the global order. This is therefore the best moment of a charted territory in the relationship between India and Europe to revitalize and protect the liberalism that the rules-based international order is fond of, which is not misused by anyone, whether it is the US, or China or Russia.

About the author- Abhivardhan is the Chief Executive Officer of Internationalism and the Chairperson & Managing Trustee of the Indian Society of Artificial Intelligence and Law.

In terms of strategy and information warfare, India needs to learn from Israel and Russia. In addition, in terms of harnessing the global supply chain and enabling the middle class in India to grow, it can learn from China, Bangladesh and Japan. However, to learn is different from the art, handiness and clarity to adopt or implement. For years, India has been a different ‘Vishwa Shishya’ (term coined by Harsh Gupta, one of the authors of ‘A New Idea of India’), where even the understanding of the term is not as literal as the term even depicts.

DISCLAIMER:

The views expressed in the Article above are Abhivardhan’s personal views and kashmiribhatta.in is not in any way responsible for the opinions expressed in the above article. The article belongs to its respective owner or owners and this site does not claim any right over it. Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing."

Courtesy: Abhivardhan and Daily Guardian: 21st November 2020