TCA Srinivasa-Raghavan: Indicus Disruptus

LINE & LENGTH

The last 60 years suggest that India is an unusually disruptive country. We should keep it that way.

All countries like to build mythologies about themselves. The British, with their understated humour, think of themselves as being fair; the Americans see themselves as freedom-loving; the French see themselves as reasonable; the Japanese see themselves as honourable; the Chinese see themselves as being destined to greatness; etc.

India is not an exception. It sees itself as being a stabiliser. But the truth is quite the opposite. When we examine the record of the last 60 years, India turns out to be unusually disruptive. After all, no other country has brought about the collapse of an internationally accepted order, not once but twice, in that short span.

Thus, in 1947 it was India that started the process which led to the dismantling of the various European empires. In 1998 it started the process that is leading to the collapse of the "international" security order.

Earlier, in 1955, it established the non-alignment movement. Also in the 1950s, it was the first to talk about an Asian monetary union and even an Asian currency. At a lesser level, there is the Indian record at the IMF and other international institutions where it has been persistently obstreperous, petulant and recalcitrant. Why, even the nomination of an Indian to succeed Kofi Annan when the tradition is to elect someone from a smaller country is of a piece with this behaviour. It is indeed an impressive record.

To use an old-fashioned term which nevertheless has the merit of conveying the essence, disruptiveness is an integral part of the Indian "national character". Indians, in general, refuse to abide by the consensus. For instance, it is not uncommon in India for activist groups espousing this or that cause to refuse to accept final rulings even by the Supreme Court. In most other societies such people would be criticised; in India they are held up as exemplars.

Non-conformity in India is a positive attribute. It matters little whether the domain of dispute is religious, political, social, economic, or anything else. There is always a challenger to the consensus, who always receives significant public support. Perhaps this is what Amartya Sen was trying to say in his book, albeit in a much more refined way. His argumentative Indian ends up being disruptive eventually.

The motives behind the disruptive behaviour almost always contain a huge moral imperative. This sounds treacly but, alas, it happens to be true. Whether it is the Left (not the Communists), or Medha Patkar or any others you care to think about, what is called "realism", but is actually cynicism, is absent.

This tendency to dissent and disrupt carries over into the international arena as well. The Americans, who have had the pleasure and the pain of running the world since 1945, will testify wholeheartedly. Our "realist" school is now saying we should stop behaving like this and join the "consensus". It is interesting to note in this context the US has decided to co-opt India, rather than leave things to chance. To have it inside the tent heckling outwards rather than outside heckling in is clearly a better strategy. The "realists" approve.

But can India change its spots? Will it become what the US wants it to become, a tame camp-follower like Britain is? Or, to put it rather more grandly, will it define its national interest without an iota of the Kantian moral imperative? Will it become like China and Pakistan, its two most disliked neighbours?

Today India doesn't look like a very effective challenger to the global economic system. But then, in 1900 also, it didn't look as if it was going to challenge the British Empire, nor in 1950 that it was going to become a nuclear power. Arguably, this could be said about China as well. But there is an important difference: the Chinese political structure doesn't believe in rocking the boat, lest its own position get weakened. The Indian political structure and attitude have always been different. They thrive only in rocky boats.

Look again at what India is trying to do in the economic sphere and see how consistent this is with its past behaviour. Although neither China nor Japan nor the US wants it, India is grating on about an Asian Economic Union, of which an Asian Monetary Union will be an integral element. If this comes about, it will challenge the established world financial order just as effectively as the freedom movement and Pokhran II.

It is not that India acts according to a design or that it is very purposeful. If anything, the opposite is true. But its doggedness in being just difficult and persistence at planting ideas which have a certain moral backing rather than merely practical common sense, need careful analysis in the context of its ability to jam up the works. There is a pattern of behaviour that the world needs to keep in view.

We are, it seems, like that only. A longer version will appear in a chapter titled "Global Prosperity and the Prospect of War in the 21st C" in War, Peace and World Hegemony: The Changing Balance of Power, edited by Chandra Chari, The Book Review Literary Trust (forthcoming)