Why India accepts multipolar world with dignity

Analysis

By Dr. Abhinav Pandya 

The critical question today in the global strategic community is whether multipolarity is good or bad. Many Western scholars and politicians are particularly disturbed by the multipolar world order. As discussed above, several scholars prefer to use the narrow matrix of military and economic indicators to liquidate the idea of multipolarity. Republican politicians prefer to increase spending on the military and defence and use brute force in foreign policy to bring back America’s unipolar moment.

The Western world’s discomfort with multipolarity arises from an overwhelmingly Hobbesian understanding of society and inter-state relations. The realist school of international relations, rooted in the Hobbesian worldview, argues that humankind is essentially selfish in nature.

Fundamentally driven by this selfish and brutish nature, mankind always makes rational decisions to maximise personal gains. According to the realist school, mankind is destined to fight. In international relations, the fulcrum of the realist school is the balance of power between different nations.

With this premise, the multipolar world order is inevitably chaotic, uncertain, and disorderly in the Western understanding. In the absence of the clear superiority of one or two major states over the others, the powerful states form alliances with various powers to safeguard their strategic interests; however, such alliances are highly vulnerable and prone to major shifts if the major powers change allegiance. Such a situation was obtained in the pre-World War I and inter-war periods.

However, in Indian metaphysics and epistemology, from which strategic thought originates, the fundamental understanding of human nature is starkly different from that of Western perspectives. Indian philosophical thought suggests that reality is Trigunatmak , i.e., a combination of three attributes. It is the combination of Sat (tendency towards selfless service, piety), Rajas (tendency towards movement and activity), and Tamas (darkness, rigidity, and lethargy).

At any given time, human nature is the product of different permutations and combinations of these three attributes. Hence, humankind is neither selfish and violent in an absolute sense nor selfless and non-violent in an absolute sense. It is both selfish and selfless, violent and non-violent, with different permutations and combinations from person to person. Having said that, war is not the ultimate destiny of mankind, and hence, the balance of power cannot be accepted as the key underlying theoretical framework of geopolitics.

In the Indian worldview, multipolarity can be seen as a naturally occurring situation in the international order. It is a system, a global order, in which multiple civilisational states exist as fundamental poles. Multipolarity implies a plurality of values, civilisational ethos, cultural norms, beliefs, and religions. It implies that dictatorship and democracy can coexist in the same world. It also implies tolerance for such plurality and diversity.

India’s first interface with the multipolar world order was in the later Vedic age (900–600 BC). In the later Vedic age, 16 Mahajanpadas existed in India. These were territorial states from northern Afghanistan to the borders of Myanmar. They included Gandhara, Kamboj, Kuru, Panchala, Anga, Magadha, Mathura, Kosala, etc. Most of these states were monarchies; however, many were republics, too, with electoral democracy. A close look at inter-state relations in the later Vedic set-up unravels the fundamentals of India’s approach to multipolarity.

The notion of Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam lays the basic theoretical framework of world order in Indian strategic thought. It means the world is one family, i.e., the different states and nations are members of one big family. There are powerful states that are accepted and treated more as the leaders and elders in the family instead of hegemons.

For example, the later Vedic system had powerful states like Mathura and Dwarka lorded by God Krishna and Pandava’s Hastinapur; however, they did not behave like hegemons, world policemen, and bullies. The powerful states, seen as family heads or leaders, were expected to exhibit moral behaviour and benevolence and act in enlightened self-interest. The powerful states had an informal authority and an aura respected by the other states.

By sheer dint of their economic and military might, they could be flexible with rules and behaviour, which in the first place were never rigidly defined; however, they were not expected to never act out of narrow selfish motives, show generosity, and act like benevolent patrons. In essence, the inter-state dealings and engagements were not based on a zero-sum game; instead, the purpose was to ensure a win-win situation for all and maintain balance and order.

At the same time, they could punish other states, such as the family head punishing errant and misguided family members. Consequently, the powerful states attacked smaller states or adversaries; however, the reasons were not fixated on selfish and petty economic and imperial motives. In many cases, the reasons were moralistic in nature.

For example, Lord Krishna defeated the powerful demon king Jarasandha of Magadha because he had captured 99 kings to sacrifice them as a part of some ritual. He was a notorious king who is mentioned as an oppressor. Interestingly, after killing him, Lord Krishna returns his kingdom to his son. Likewise, Lord Ram attacked Ravana’s Lanka to rescue his wife, Sita. After killing Ravana, he also returned the kingdom of Lanka to Ravana’s sibling, Vibhishana.

With this baseline framework, the powerful states acted more like Vishwamitra or Vishwaguru. Recently, PM Modi called India a Vishwamitra, a friend of the world. Vishwaguru, a commonly occurring word among various scholars of Indian religious and philosophical thought, means the master or teacher of the world.

In a spiritual country like India, the emphasis has always been on a moral or spiritual victory known as Dhammavijay or Dharmavijay. The ultimate power is not material; it is moral or spiritual. Hence, for any country, economic size and military might be crucial components of its comprehensive national power, however, the ultimate measure of power is their ability to translate that hard power into robust global diplomatic influence and clout.

Economic and military power can enable a country to become an aggressor and help in military or economic conquest, but it is only moral and spiritual power that can make a nation like India a Vishwa Mitra or Vishwa Guru, which enjoys the trust of the entire community of nations and can lead them without double standards.

Hence, India sits comfortably with the multipolar world order. During the bipolar world of Cold War times, India refused to join the capitalist and communist blocks and pursue an independent foreign policy, giving birth to the non-aligned movement. This policy of non-alignment originated in India’s civilisational alignment with multipolarity.

In India’s current diplomacy, the non-alignment has transformed into a multi-alignment trajectory, as a part of which India continues to pursue an independent and principled foreign policy based on the harmonious balance of its national interests and moral considerations.

New Delhi maintains relations with various nations, including those in the rival camps. For example, India has cordial relations with Israel and Iran and with Saudi Arabia and Iran. India and the US have a natural partnership premised on shared beliefs in the liberal/democratic world order, the rule of law, human rights, and freedom of expression.

However, it calls its civilisational relationship with Russia a ‘ special and privileged strategic partnership .’ Russia continues to be its major arms and oil supplier. Despite its border clashes with China and the US-China tensions, India maintains a robust trade relationship with Beijing.

Despite the American inducements, India has not yet signalled a complete shift towards Washington. In its inherent comfort with multipolarity, India rejects great power politics. It seeks reforms in multilateral institutions to reflect more diversity and achieve inclusive cooperation.

With this line, India is well-suited to position itself as a leader of the Global South, which is once again an extension of its leadership of the non-aligned movement. Notably, under India’s G20 presidency, the African Union became a full member of the G20.

Independent and principled foreign policy guarantees a certain degree of credibility for India, which was amply visible in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. Despite intense pressure from the West, India refused to join the Western world in anti-Russia sanctions. As a result, PM Modi enjoys credibility with both camps and is considered the most suitable choice to play the role of mediator and peacemaker. US Secretary of State Blinken himself acknowledged that India, along with China, played an important role in deterring Putin from using nukes.

Hence, multipolarity is not problematic. The current transformations in global politics are leading us towards a multipolar world order. Perhaps the US can take a leaf out of India’s playbook and approach multipolarity with a constructive and optimistic perspective. Understanding power distribution in purely ‘zero-sum-game’ terms is not the best approach to multipolarity.

Experimenting with a new style of diplomacy based on bilateralism and mini-lateralism can be very effective in making a multipolar world order beneficial by leveraging its influence in that world. Once again, India is navigating the great power politics through bilateralism and mini-laterals. The US can explore this Indian approach, increase development aid, take the lead in reforming multilateral institutions, help post-war reconstruction, desist from protectionist trade policies, and accept value plurality. To sum up, in a multipolar world, there is ample scope for leaders to act as Vishwamitras and Vishwagurus but not as hegemons.

Disclaimer: This paper is the author's individual scholastic contribution and does not necessarily reflect the organization's viewpoint. The article was first published in Firstpost.