Written by: Riddhi Deokar
Image courtsy : wikipedia
Introduction
In a much-contested essay authored by George K. Tanham titled India’s Strategic Thought: An Interpretive Essay, he argues that India essentially lacks consistent and coherent strategic thought. He further states that there is, throughout history, a lack of political unity, and he attributes this lacuna to four factors that have conditioned the strategic thinkers: geography, history, culture, and the British Raj. (Tanham, 1992). Tanham’s position has been met with many criticisms, just like many other Western thinkers seeking to analyze Indian political and developmental histories, Tanham has an inherent limitation because of the Western analytical lens through which India and broadly the nations of the Global South are viewed.
This compulsion to translate the political aspects of non-western nations into Western perspectives to understand the history of these nations renders ingenuity, and hence we find ourselves perennially defending the originality of our approach to politics. Tanham’s criticism and the subsequent defenses to his critique by various Indian strategic thinkers that arose exemplify this phenomenon. This phenomenon is how India’s strategic thought was lost in translation. The only way to escape this is to understand India’s strategic cultural thought, independent of its objective to defend or justify its existence.
India’s Strategic Culture: Understanding the Contributing Sources
Strategic culture, according to Shrikant Paranjpe, stems from the concept of political culture. “It is the political culture of a country that would determine the approaches to peace and security that the nation seeks to present” (Paranjpe, 2013, p. 11). The link between strategic culture and political culture is acknowledged in the writings of thinkers like Sun Tzu and Kautilya. Johnston stresses that the advocates of the aspect of culture argue that states have various strategic approaches that stem from their political, cultural, and cognitive characteristics. Hence, today, the importance of strategic culture is paramount, as it helps us decode why nations act the way they do.
A deep dive into the sources that contributed to India’s strategic culture is important to understand our strategic culture. History of India has broadly been the rise and fall of empires, and the interplay of this has left us with stratagems of statecraft and maxims of economics and politics. In this regard, the Mauryan Empire, founded by Chandragupta Maurya in 321 BCE, holds paramount importance, providing us with Kautilya’s Arthashastra. This treatise touches upon national and international strategy and talks about practical approaches to domestic policies. Kautilya, even though at times prescribes doing away with moral principles to preserve the unity of the state, preferred peace and considered war to be the last resort. The title Arthashastra itself conveys that the book talks about the ‘science of wealth’ or the economics and politics of statecraft.
The empires of India left her with longstanding legacies of statecraft that, to date, govern the policies that we follow. The aspects of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, which was also the theme for the G20 summit held in Delhi, and that of Kshama (peace) are part of this long-standing legacy. Paranjpe opines that the Ashokan Empire was a source of modern-day perceptions about inter-state relations and a source of India’s current stance in terms of peace and non-violence. Ashoka’s decision to convert to Buddhism and his cooperation with other states laid the foundation for the core philosophy of India’s Panchsheel philosophy, which is the core five principles of peaceful coexistence. (Paranjpe, 2013, p. 26)
The Mughal empire, founded in 1526 by Babur, has also contributed to the tenets of today’s Indian governance. Two tenets put forth by Akbar are worth mentioning: Deen-e-Ilahi (Divine Faith), which aimed at a synthesis of the religions of his time, and Suleh Kul (Peace to All), formulated to assimilate Hindu society in governance. Akbar wanted to bring together Muslims and non-Muslims in all aspects of life. Paranjpe rightly concludes that Indians consider Akbar and Ashoka as both symbols of tolerance, which explains our maxim of Sarva dharma sambhava (peaceful coexistence for all religions).
The epics Mahabharata and Ramayana have also largely influenced our strategic cultural thought. The Mahabharata and its political contributions bring us to two sections called the Shanti Parva and the Anushasan Parva. These texts talk about the deathbed advice that Bheeshma gives to Yudhishtir. The Shanti Parva talks about the role of the king and, by extension, that of the government, and about harmony in the kingdom, which depends on the exercise of governmental power. The common theme and core value highlighted in both epics is that of Dharma. Swarna Rajagopalan, in ‘India’s Grand Strategy: History, Theory, and Cases', defines dharma as "both the ideological foundation and the purpose of the political community, which is intended to end the state of anarchy and restore and protect dharma.” (Kanti Bajpai, 2014, p. 39)
Dharma, according to Rajagopalan, has aspects of social order, the aspect of dharma at the individual level, and the aspect of dharma of the ruling class. Dharma further becomes important as it is the force that silences chaos by way of danda (punishment). Dharma is what stands between Matsyanyaya (an Indian description of anarchy) and society. Matsyanyaya reflects, according to Rajagopalan, today’s fear of failed states. (Kanti Bajpai, 2014) Rajagopalan further elaborates on Dharma by saying, "In today’s context, Dharma may be reinterpreted as a preference for norm-based interactions.” (Kanti Bajpai, 2014, p. 42) This legacy of dharma persists and is reflected in the various ways India approaches the situations it is faced with.
Conclusion
India’s eventful history and the changes in its strategic thought in history often contribute to the criticism of inconsistent strategic thought. The difference in approaches to strategy between precolonial India and postcolonial India can be attributed to the ideals of the leaders who guided India down the path of independence. Gandhiji’s approach to satyagraha and non-violence, along with Nehru’s moral high ground of non-alliance, all need to be viewed against the historic backdrop of our nation. Even though there may be deviations, India still maintains its strategic fabric, which is woven out of our elaborate cultural and philosophical texts. The effort to maintain India’s cultural fabric is seen through the emphasis of many leaders to continue those ideals. From the ideal of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam of the G20 summit to Foreign Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s emphasis on the importance of epics in foreign policy decision-making, India’s strategic culture can be characterized as one that is evolving, embracing the changes that surround the nation while maintaining the cultural foundations that our history of vast empires endowed us with.
Tanham’s criticism of India’s strategic culture as lacking and inconsistent stems from the compulsion to translate it and classify it in the existing Western ideological frameworks. In a globalized world, the need to build parallelisms to understand the complexities of other cultures and states is understood and justified, but this effort always walks the thin line of comparing the two approaches to reduce one in terms of the other. The tendency to translate Kautilya’s Arthashastra into Machiavelli’s The Prince takes away from Kautilya’s novelty and fails to help the Global North understand Arthashastra as the historical and political backgrounds get conveniently blurred in these translations.
Hence Tanham’s criticism of India’s strategic cultural thought in 1992 is understandable, as it got lost in translation. This underlines the larger debate that exists in the divide between the Global North and Global South: that the theories of international relations of the former cannot completely explain the development of the latter, which results in the Global South being at the receiving end of dismissive analysis like that of Tanhams. Therefore, we must revive India’s strategic cultural thought that was lost in Tanham’s translation. The first step in this endeavor is to acknowledge the existence and prevalence of one.
Sources:
1.George K. Tanham, Indian Strategic Thought – An Interpretative Essay, RAND Corporation, 1992. (R-4207-USDP).
2. Shrikant Paranjpe, India's Strategic Culture: The Making of National Security Policy, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2013.
3. Kanti Bajpai, Saira Basit, V. Krishnappa, India’s Grand Strategy; History, Theory, Cases, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2014.
The opinions expressed and suggestions made in the article belong solely to the author themselves. Diplomania and O.P. Jindal Global University do not endorse the same.
Comments