An Insight into Indian Motives
By Sana Chaudhry

BORN with an appetite for greatness and a belief in its destiny to be an international leader, India’s foreign policy has evolved from the doctrine of non-alignment to one that is based on alliances depending on national interests.

Very shrewdly, India is maintaining a double policy of portraying itself as a peaceful state right from the time of its inception. Its foreign policy is designed such that the world is only able to see what India makes it see; a peace loving and responsible state.

An extract from Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s speech that encompasses some of the major Indian foreign policy elements is as follows:

“We hope to develop close and direct contacts with other nations and to cooperate with them in the furtherance of world peace and freedom. We propose, as far as possible, to keep away from the power politics of groups, aligned against one another, which have led in the past to world wars and which may again lead to disasters on an even vaster scale. We believe that peace and freedom are invisible and the denial of freedom anywhere must endanger freedom elsewhere and lead to conflict and war. We are particularly interested in the emancipation of colonial and dependent countries and peoples and in the recognition in theory and practice of equal opportunities for all races.”

It’s ironic that India’s actions do not match its words. If India has been so enthusiastic about propagating peace & freedom in the world that it has made it an important element of its foreign policy, the question then arises, why has it been denying this so called freedom it so proudly calls itself a staunch supporter of, to the Kashmiri people?

Why does is it not let peace and tranquility prevail in the beautiful valley of Kashmir which is red all over due to the brutality and atrocities inflicted by the presence of 0.8 million Indian troops deployed in the Indian held Kashmir?

In fact it has always been Pakistan initiating the peace talks between the two states which India has always scoffed at.

The matter of fact is that India is very cunningly maintaining for itself a positive image in the eyes of international community. Repeatedly, Indian leaders make statements that enhance its positive image. Recently in an interview, the former Indian Army Chief denied any of India’s hegemonic designs and refused any of its intentions to pressurize the smaller states in the region.

Another example is the statement issued by Indian PM Man Mohan Singh on their independence day which said: “We want peaceful neighbors”. This is how India makes it gains; by portraying itself as peaceful and by issuing negative statements to deteriorate Pakistan’s image. Now let’s have a historical overview of ‘India as a neighbor’. India is situated in a politically volatile region, and its neighbors—China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal—come in all different sizes and strengths.

India has one common denominator in its relations with all of its neighbors—it has never had normal, long-term relations with any one of them. India engaged in bitter wars with Pakistan in 1948, 1965, and 1971, 1999 and with China in 1962. And it has directly interfered in the internal affairs of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal.

In a typical debate over South Asian security affairs, much attention is focused on India-Pakistan relations, but an important fact is often overlooked, namely, that India has equally unsatisfactory relations with its other neighbors as well.

Direct Indian involvement in Sri Lanka’s internal strife during the late 1980s, the economic blockade of Nepal in 1989 is yet another example of India’s attitude towards its neighbors. India also has continuing disputes with Bangladesh on water rights and the flow of refugees. To put it more precisely, Muslim Pakistan is not unique in having less than normal ties with secular India; Socialist China, Buddhist Sri Lanka, and Hindu Nepal have similar problems in their relations with their next-door neighbor.

The first step India wishes to take on its way to becoming a key global player (as it aspires) is to form its hegemony over the region. The Indian actions of direct confrontation with Pakistan, China, Sri Lanka, and even Nepal are merely to show the neighboring countries that it is big and powerful and not only that but such actions on India’s part reveal Indian aggression.
Indian diplomacy is all about hypocrisy.

An age old dictum goes somewhat like this: “They never do what they say and they never say what they do.” True, in case of India. An attempt by India to give a severe blow to the reputation of Pakistan internationally was when on 17 August, 1999, India’s National Security Advisor, Mr. Brijesh Mishra, announced what he termed ‘India’s Draft Nuclear Doctrine’ and its status still remains ambiguous.

One of its salient features is: India will have ‘no first use’ policy, but will respond with punitive retaliation should deterrence fail.

By issuing such a doctrine, India widely led international community to believe India is one responsible state which would never use nuclear weapons and it was expected of Pakistan to make one such commitment as well.

Had Pakistan not known real Indian motives it would have had made a mistake my making such commitment. But the long course of more than fifty years was enough for Pakistan not to trust Indian motives.

And then on January 4, 2003, India finally announced the broad contours of its Nuclear Command and Control Structure which reiterated some key elements from its draft nuclear doctrine while modifying others. Two of its salient aspects are: A posture of ‘no first use’.

In the event of major attack against India or Indian forces anywhere, by nuclear biological or chemical weapons, India will retain the option of retaliating with nuclear weapons.

Yet another important aspect of possible Indian designs comes in the form of the very recent Indo-US nuclear deal which is claimed to happen as a result of fulfilling India’s growing energy needs. India through its propaganda of ‘peace loving and responsible state’ was able to attain the trust of US which culminated in the form of nuclear deal.

Unfortunately this deal is the de facto acceptance of India as a nuclear state by US. It is an unavoidable fact that India may divert the already created nuclear energy used for peaceful purposes to the weapon production and use the nuclear energy as a result of the deal, for the peaceful purposes.

This would increase its nuclear weapon production which is a threat for Pakistan. Moreover, From an Indian perspective they are desperate to achieve increased defense spending so that Pakistan would also be forced to increase its defense expenditure, thereby, crippling its economy.

India wants to be an unequivocal ally of US. India has had a full hand in encouraging anti state factors and secessionist movements in Pakistan, with an ultimate motive of dismantling and crippling the state of Pakistan.

And perhaps one of the reasons keeping India from the display of its aggression is its aspiration to become a member of UN Security Council. In such an atmosphere when it is hoping to get a seat in UNSC, it can not really afford to offend the international community by making a false move and blowing its image.

But nevertheless, India never rules out the possibility of another Indo-Pak war and from time to time issue such statements. However, it still manages to be called ‘peace loving and responsible’. How ironic!

Moreover, its only China’s might that’s keeping India from launching an attack against it. Had it not been for China’s superiority in power, it would have been an absolute certainty that Indian aggression on Indo-Chinese border would have been more or less similar to that of Indo-Pak border.

Is such a state with evil designs capable of acquiring a UNSC seat? Certainly not!

It is high time that international community opens its eyes towards the policy of double standards as pursued by the Indian leaders. It is only the false Indian propaganda that has brought it this far.●

© 2007 Sana Chaudhry