T N Ninan: Up the pole

WEEKEND RUMINATIONS

They say about people that you learn about them from studying their behaviour as they climb up the greasy pole. The gap between what they say and do when they are low down the pole, and what they say from the top, gives you the measure of the man.

If so, can the same thing be said about countries? Whether the thesis is valid or not, India presents an interesting case study.

Start with the nuclear deal in Washington. The success of the deal is that India has broken into the nuclear club in some way, that it is de facto being recognised as a nuclear weapon power, and that it is being treated differently from both Pakistan and Israel. As one columnist put it pithily, India has become an "honorary white".

I am not sure that is a compliment. If there is apartheid (and we have long used that word in the context of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), do you want to belong to the white man's club or do you want to end it altogether?

In the nuclear context, this is not to argue for everyone building a nuclear armoury; instead, it is to hark back to Rajiv Gandhi's call for a nuclear-free world. You could argue that since the nuclear haves show no signs of disarming, the only option left is to join the club. Perhaps. But our efforts to join the club have been more evident than our efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament.

There are other parallels. Time was when India was one of the leaders of the G-77 group of developing countries and doing what the powerless do when they have no negotiating power: asking for justice. By the late 1980s, when that grouping became more of a liability than an asset, the external affairs ministry thought up the G-15, which would comprise other G-77 stalwarts like India.

That was the first step towards dumping the G-77. Now even the G-15 is not a club worth belonging to, because India is one of the four BRICs countries to whom the 21st century will belong. So we deal with the great power nations as a future equal. And why not? But have we forgotten our old friends?

What is said about the G-77 can also be said about the non-aligned movement, which has become a bit of an embarrassment but something we cannot bring ourselves to openly disown. But the shift from multilateral diplomacy (using strength in numbers) to bilateral dealings (entry into the big boys' dealing rooms) tells the story.

Meanwhile, our old stress on non-violence, a legacy from the powerless days of a colony fighting the mightiest empire in the world, has been tucked away in the attic and we have become a country with one of the largest arms purchase budgets in the world.

To be sure, every country has to defend itself, and with other great powers in the neighbourhood, on both land and sea, it would be foolhardy to not get hold of a big stick in case someone attacks. Having conceded that, it is hard not to notice that the principle of non-violence is not mouthed any more; rather, the language we now use is the language of power.

Perhaps we were wrong in the positions that we adopted as a country in the old days; both Gandhian idealism and Nehruvian woolliness had to be discarded at some stage. Or perhaps it was just a case of the right tactics at the right time.

We didn't really believe at any stage that we belonged to the pack. India was destined for greatness, and there is nothing wrong with realising our potential. All true, but is it worth sparing a thought for the clubs that we are leaving and asking ourselves how we might appear to them?

And if we do manage the transition, will it be kinder and gentler and more generous to the people with whom we were clubbed till not long ago? Or are we telling ourselves that it doesn't matter any more?