By Gaurav Sen
In international relations, “power” has many takers and users, but defining it is still incredibly difficult. Quite few have succeeded in describing ‘what is power?’, except for some general statements. On the other hand, the position of power in International Politics remains indispensable for students of international relations. Its position in international relations resembles the position of ‘Time’ in History, ‘Space’ in geography, and ‘Money’ in the economy. One could not contemplate international politics without putting power as a central theme. Although, the aggregation of power of a nation could be measured by its overall economic and military strength, still there is no credible definition that can generalize the use of power at the international level. Consequently, international politics descended into becoming a story of the rise and fall of great powers. The security dilemma strengthens between the nations because we cannot be sure about other nations’ thoughts on power. As the contemporary international system is undergoing a shift, and the power transition from west to east is a real thing, we should know what India’s idea of power is. Since India, which occupies a special position in international politics, is also regarded as a rising power, we must wrestle with the thought of how Indians acted when they had the power. The answer is coming from old age epical and historical accounts.
We can all recall the scene in which Rama sat before the ocean and prayed for a passage to Lanka, but the ‘Samudra Dev’ (Ocean God) made no reply. After three days, Rama became furious and vowed to use only one shot of his arrow to dry up the entire ocean. This episode was described by Tulsidas as –
‘विनय ना मानत जलध जड़ गए तीन दिन बीति। बोले राम सकोप तब भय बिनु होय ना प्रीति II’
The incident demonstrated almighty Rama’s strength and patience, as he initially thought there should be a peaceful solution. Rama teaches us that we should initially abstain from employing force. Other than Rama, Krishna’s personality has a colossal influence on how ordinary Indians behave, and this influence has filtered down to Indian diplomats as well. The story of Krishna’s peace proposal is instructive. In it, the supreme Krishna pleaded Suyodhan for peace. Who not only rejected the offer but also made an attempt to imprison Krishna before realizing that Krishna has the power to annihilate everything in an instant. Another instance is “Shishupal Vadh“; when Shishupal attempted to challenge Krishna’s authority and even insulted him, Krishna patiently awaited his hundredth offense.
With these first two examples, India has demonstrated an unusual method of using power, in which the person in charge takes the initiative to find a non-military solution to the problem. These distinct but connected instances show the collective perception of the all-powerful personality of each respective era. Additionally, we can see that these two individuals have never derided the acquisition of power, although in ancient India, not having the ability to defend oneself was often mocked. The famous incident where Buddha was disturbed by Ajatasatru destroying Vaishali’s country is well known. He thought that everyone should be able to protect himself. The idea of Dharma (duty), which gave Ahimsa (nonviolence) the top spot, gives the Indian people a sense of authority. In addition, Chanakya, who is regarded as the first realist scholar, listed four additional techniques to defeat enemies in his treatise on statecraft.
He attempted to strike a balance between non-military and military methods in his major work Arthasastra and provided the maxim साम दाम दंड भेद. The fact that he initially sought to avoid employing direct military force demonstrates the widespread belief among Indian thinkers that the military should not be used as a tool of coercion. After a violent battle, Emperor Ashoka defeated Kalinga and accepted peace. He did not need an ironclad to administer this huge empire; rather, he needed peace to be the norm. The lions of Sarnath are depicted grinning, signifying that power is a tool for securing prosperity rather than a necessary source of dread for others.
The struggle for our independence is further evidence for this theory. Even after becoming aware of the anger of the Indian people, Mahatma Gandhi steadfastly refused to use violence as the major means of achieving freedom. Even after gaining independence, Nehru refused to take part in the “balance of power politics,” demonstrating India’s long-held opposition to power-driven politics.
But it comes as no surprise that this disdain of using power never appeared before attaining it. All of the aforementioned figures represent the most powerful individuals of their day, although utilizing coercion was never their first choice. This idea flowed uncontaminated from Sri Rama to Nehru. Indians were never afraid to take control, defend themselves, or stop “Adharma.” The problem grew more complicated as India developed into a modern nation-state. Initially, India fought vehemently for nuclear disarmament, but understanding the underlying impossibility of the choice and the growing threat of vengeful international politics, India chose to be a “powerful state” with a nuclear weapon. Going nuclear, however, invited the fury of the west, but India, which was directly threatened by nuclear weapons after China‘s nuclear test, had no choice but to develop the means of self-defense. This was made even clearer by the late Atal Bihari Bajpai’s criticism of the nuclear weapon as only a “political tool” rather than a weapon of war.
We were now able to interpret India’s nuclear doctrine. India has decided to solely pursue its “retaliation policy” with “credible minimum deterrence” and to be a “No First Use” nation with regard to nuclear weapons. Additionally, credible minimum deterrence entails having sufficient and survivable nuclear forces to cause the opponent unacceptable damage. The doctrine’s reference to “unacceptable damage” is actually a reference to an old but firmly held Indian belief that “peace should be employed as a main instrument to defeat an adversary but if that fails power should be there for backup.” It reveals India’s history with power, whether it is through Rama’s patience for three days or Krishna’s forbearance in the instance of Shishupal. Nonetheless, the ultimate way to understand the Indian mindset and how they use power is through nuclear weapons. Many voices have been raised recently to reevaluate or possibly modify the “No first use” policy with relation to nuclear weapons, whose strategic benefit is still debatable.
The author is a Doctoral Candidate, Centre for African Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of Financial Express Online. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.