Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Recently we are exposed to a wide ranging debate about foreign policy in India. The different voices are pretty clear. One says we should have the national interest in mind when formulating policy. The other says a policy which is independent and principled is what we need.

Option A supposes that there is longevity in the consensus on what the “national interests” are. Only then you can steer the policy thru the vagaries of international politics over a longer period of time. This consensus implies some agreement on the principles to define” national interests”.

Option B supposes that the debate over what should be the guiding principles of our nation state is over, and hence the pursuit of those principles is what shall guide the policy. It also follows that those principles are definitely in the “national interest”.

Independence in policy I think is if you think about it, a non-requirement. Because in both cases you are pursuing some known results and hence forced to make choices to better the odds of achieving them and tied to those choices. I don’t think no one in their serious mind is thinking of independence in colonial terms still.

Back to our options, now it appears that both options are not all that different in terms of philosophical underpinning and both are different means to the same end. Leaving alone how both options define the principles and interests, I am ideologically drawn to option A, but recently I have been questioning myself.

Are there no principles that India should strive to achieve in this world? Isn't there anything at all should we stand for? Is it the place of nations to stand for something?

Some A team members are going to say…”well, we have to become stronger first to espouse some principles, so we will follow option A and once we become strong we will do some B”. What happens when in pursuit of A, we undermine some of B? Some others will say “There are no principles to stand for”. Would you like that proposition? Because miniaturizing it would mean every town or village is a lawless land.

3 Comments:

At 11:43 AM, Blogger Kupps said...

well,

Actually, the two options in air in India are:

option A: choose the one that serves the best interest of the nation.

option B: stick to the ideology.

there is a definte difference in saying stick to ideology and saying stick to principle.

option A is not completely devoid of principled stand. option A can be and is, as principled as option B seems to be.

Things are sold to people by "option B"-ists as though only option B-ists are principled and option A-ism is totally crooked fallacious opportunism.

 
At 11:31 AM, Blogger Ram said...

what hppned da.. not to be seen..are you worried abt the lack of responses..??

keep writing srini.. it will take some time for your readers to get precise on vast issues that you seem to post about easily..

in anycase, there is kuppa for company.. ;)

heard, your wife's response.. why waste webspace.. :)) agree, in way.. but there lies the challenge.. eh..!

 
At 7:46 PM, Blogger Srinivasan said...

Vaazhga..! Vasagan Ramasamy...!
Un kulam vaazhga..!

What you said is entirely true. But I am working on my next post. Kuppan and I had an argument about this "independence" thing. I am trying to organize my thoughts into putting out a strong case arguing that
1. era of independence is over.
2. Inter-dependence is in (a long time ago).
3. How as a nation we would benefit more from agile manoevering in an interdependent world instead of being rigid trying to be independent.

One more cause of distraction is my (yet another) dilettantism of trying to learn water color painting. Busted $130 on a workshop. Did learn how to speak aesthetically about colors without even attempting to mean anything.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home