Foreign Policy In India’s Electoral Fray 

Manifestos of political parties in India are dominated by policy statements on domestic issues, with foreign policy receiving only marginal mention. A long-established view that issues like roti, kapada aur makan (food, clothing and housing) and now roads, bridges, inflation, and jobs are the issues of primary concern to voters. But this has been changing, particularly in the past decade. The Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP), at the helm since 2014, has focused on five themes: assertive nationalism, civilizational legacy, India’s growing profile on the world stage, the notion that Viksit Bharat or a developed India needs more, not fewer, linkages with the international community, and finally the G20 presidency theme of “The World is one Family” in which India has a special and unique place. Consequently, foreign policy issues attract greater attention today than in the pre-2014 era. This is reinforced by the emergence of Narendra Modi as a real “foreign policy PM” after Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister. Modi’s penchant for summit diplomacy and success in forging a vast network of friends and contacts at the highest political levels around the world have significantly contributed to his image as a proactive and popular leader. Regional parties have not caught up with their counterparts in the mainstream. Despite being coastal states like Tamil Nadu, Odisha and Bengal or border states with large migrant communities like Punjab, they have been local in their outlook, lacking a worldview. Therefore, the main analysis here is of foreign policy contained in the manifestos of the BJP, Congress and some regional political parties. Against this backdrop, the BJP’s manifesto  (“Sankalp Patra”) needs to be assessed holistically, with a special reference to its foreign policy agenda. Being in power for 10 years means the agenda is less vision now and more resolve or sankalp for a continuum. It is also a foreign policy that emanates from India’s domestic environment and aspirations. The BJP now prefers to call India “Bharat,” stressing its strong inclination to highlight the nation’s pre-colonial, pre-medieval period of history. The party did not go with its more enthusiastic supporters who project the nation as Vishvaguru or the teacher of the world or the choice of ministers and officials of Vishvamitra or the friend of the world. The manifesto chose a more benign appellation – Vishvabandhu, or the brother of the world – but a brother for whom the nation comes first, under the overarching heading of “A Bharat First Foreign Policy.” This policy’s 10 components are: Leading the Global South First responder Bharat Becoming a permanent member of the UN Security Council Creating a global consensus on the fight against terrorism Following the “Neighbourhood First policy” Expanding Bharat’s diplomatic network Bharatiya diaspora for growth and development Strengthening maritime vision (SAGAR) Establishment of IMEC to promote Bharat’s trade interests Developing Strategic Partnerships for Bharat’s Mineral Security These are all unexceptionable goals and conform to the BJP government’s pursuit since 2014. The first seven are under active implementation; the last three – expanding SAGAR, IMEC, and mineral security will be put into action over the next five years as India’s growth trajectory and geopolitical positioning become attainable. Aligned with this are India’s diplomatic missions, which are adding an economic dimension to their goals in a way that they have perhaps not done before. There is little to criticize in these broad goals. Some question the inclusion of the quest for UN Security Council membership in the list. This objection is misplaced. The party has carefully stated it is “committed to seeking” UNSC membership, not a promise of it as an achievement in the next five years. Others quibble about India’s aspiration to be a teacher, friend, or brother of the world. Yet others point to an apparent contradiction between the concept of “Bharat First” and “Neighbourhood First.” Party supporters reject such criticism as unfair and born of anti-BJP bias. More broadly, the manifesto is in line with the administration’s ongoing foreign policy. The Congress party is a contrast. It is essentially concerned with the lack of justice in India, calling its manifesto the Nyaya Patra. It states: “The gravest danger is that India may no longer be a truly free and democratic republic.” It frames the voters’ choice not as Congress or BJP but as a choice between “a democratic government or an authoritarian rule.” There is no formal reference to external relations, but there is a separate section on National Security where a sub-section deals with specific foreign policy matters. The manifesto states that in the place of a formal National Security Strategy, there is “ad-hoc and personalized policy handling.” If elected to power, it promises to issue “a comprehensive National Security Strategy.” This concept of defense, national security and foreign policy has been presented in detail in 12 paragraphs. Its principal goal is to take corrective action or revert to previous positions. For instance, it states that foreign policy that has existed since independence has witnessed “marked departures,” notably on the ongoing Gaza conflict under the present government. It pledges to uphold “the continued relevance of the established policy of peaceful coexistence, strategic autonomy in thought and action, and increased bilateral engagement” in its relations with the countries of the world. On countering terrorism, a perceived weakness of the Congress party, it says that it is “implacably opposed” to it. “We will work,” it says, “with other countries to eliminate terrorist groups, terrorist acts, and cross-border terrorism. Given the raging debate in the Western liberal media over “the democratic backsliding” under the BJP rule, the Congress manifesto says the party “will work to repair India’s international image that has been damaged by the present government’s intolerance of dissent and suppression of human rights.” Like the BJP, it also plans to expand India’s diplomatic corps and missions. And like the BJP, it emphasizes the neighbourhood but specifically mentions only the engagement with Pakistan, which will depend “fundamentally on its willingness and ability to end cross-terrorism.” On China, the Congress has severely criticized the BJP’s management. The manifesto claims it will handle this relationship differently. This seems usual opposition-speak as Congress governments in the past too suffered from serious constraints and setbacks on this subject. As the new government takes over in India in June 2024, the huge power asymmetry between China and India and the former’s goal to constrain the latter’s rise as a great power remain powerful constants. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPI (M) manifesto has a specific foreign policy section. This party portrays the last five years of the Modi government as “an unmitigated disaster for the country and the people.” It is worried about “the unprecedented sharpening of communal polarisation” and wants to work for the establishment of an alternative secular government. Under Foreign Policy, it highlights the abandonment of India’s “Independent Foreign Policy,“ and true to its ideology, decries the BJP’s changed foreign policy orientation “to dovetail to US global strategy interests,“ thus turning India into a “junior partner of US imperialism.” The CPI (M), which is in an alliance with the Congress, has a specific foreign policy agenda and differs from the BJP in some respects. For example, the party advocates an independent and non-aligned foreign policy, promoting multi-polarity, strengthening BRICS, SCO and IBSA, and reactivating SAARC. It is opposed to intervention and regime change imposed by the U.S. As is being attempted in Venezuela and other countries in Latin America. On Pakistan, it favours the resumption of dialogue to resolve all outstanding issues, including cross-border terrorism and promote people-to-people relations between India and Pakistan. It pledges special efforts to build relations with Bangladesh and settle the Teesta water agreement. On Sri Lanka, it will engage with Colombo and persuade it to devolve powers to the Northern and Eastern regions, so the Tamil-speaking people can have autonomy within a united Sri Lanka. It also stands for reversing the pro-Israeli tilt in foreign policy. Finally, in the U.S., the Communists want to revise various defense agreements and create a national security apparatus that “works within the framework of the parliamentary democratic system.“ The two significant regional parties are Bengal’s Trinamul Congress (TMC) and Tamil Nadu’s Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). The DMK’s 68-page manifesto is devoid of any reference to foreign policy. Much of it is a detailed listing of promises to voters on socio-economic, cultural and linguistic issues. Just two issues have foreign policy implications. On the Sri Lanka dimension, it pledges to grant citizenship to Sri Lankan Tamils living in India, reclaim Kachchatheevu island to ensure India’s security (India’s space-rocket launch site is located 200 km from Kachchatheevu) and protect the fishermen. On the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, the DMK promises to repeal it, considering it discriminatory on religious grounds. Here the DMK keeps company with the TMC, which similarly promises to discontinue it along with the National Register of Citizens. Critics say  the manifesto lacks vision and is based on a “patron-client model.” As the opposition parties are unlikely to wrest power from the BJP in the 2024 elections, many will be inclined to dismiss those perspectives as inconsequential. However, considering the fundamental importance of an Opposition in a democracy, these parties must work harder to meaningfully develop and broaden their expertise in foreign policy and national security issues. Only then can they be a responsible and effective opposition, working in the best interests of the people of India and the future of democracy. Rajiv Bhatia is Distinguished Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies, Gateway House, and a former ambassador. This article was exclusively written for Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. You can read more exclusive content here.  For permission to republish, please contact outreach@gatewayhouse.In.  Support our work here. ©Copyright 2024 Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. All rights reserved. Any unauthorised copying or reproduction is strictly prohibited. TAGGED UNDER: BJP, BJP manifesto, congress, foreign policy, Narendra Modi


Why Indian Voters See Job Creation As The Election’s Biggest Issue 

As India’s marathon election kicked off its first voting phase last Friday, April 19, unemployment was looming large in the minds of millions of voters—despite the country’s rapid economic growth. Since Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power in 2014, economists have been quick to serve India on a silver platter as a powerful rival to China, particularly for its global manufacturing, investment, and growth capabilities. Investors have reason to feel bullish: between 2014 and 2023, India’s GDP grew by 55%, overtaking countries like the U.K., France, Italy, and Brazil to become the world’s fifth-largest economy. The IMF projects it will likely expand by 6.3% this year—no small feat for a trillion-dollar economy. According to Indian economist Ajit Ranade, the economy has gained momentum from longer-term factors: “Number one is, of course, the demography,” he says. With an average age of 29 years, India has one of the youngest populations globally, which means that “there's a large, youthful labor force that’s expanding and a virtuous cycle of people who are going to be looking for jobs, earning, spending, consuming, investing, saving, paying taxes, and so on,” says Ranade. Read More: What to Know About India’s 2024 Election Yet, a pre-poll survey by CSDS-Lokniti, a Delhi-based research institute, found that nearly half the electorate sees unemployment and rising prices as the two biggest concerns this election, an indication that India has not yet reaped the economic benefits of this group. As a result, economists say Modi’s government—if it comes back to power for a third term—will now need to find new ways to take advantage of its demographic dividend. What the numbers show India has struggled with low job creation over the past decade, with the worker-to-population ratio declining from 38.6% in 2011-12 to 37.3% in 2022-23, according to the government’s labor force surveys. The government has also struggled to create jobs for unskilled and poor workers, with only 20% of Indians currently working in manufacturing or IT services, while over 40% remaining in agriculture, according to the UN University World Institute for Development. What’s more, Indian economist Jayati Ghosh notes that any benefits accrued from India’s economic growth have been unequally distributed among the top 10-20% of income earners.  But nowhere is the unemployment crisis felt more acutely than by the 8 million young and educated Indians who enter the workforce every year—undercutting the long-held belief among Indians that having an education would guarantee them a job. According to a recent report from the International Labor Organization (ILO), 83% of India’s unemployed population is young, while 66% are young and educated. What’s more, the ILO found that those without university degrees or even full schooling had a higher employment rate. The result is what the ILO calls “paradoxical improvements” to India’s labor participation rate, workforce participation rate, and unemployment rate.   Yet the numbers—which are still difficult to measure accurately since the government hasn’t released any consumption figures from consumer expenditure surveys typically conducted every five years—don’t fully reflect the unique situation of India’s labor workforce.  “In the Indian case, a very large percentage of the workforce is in the informal sector, meaning that many of them are working without a contract, don't have social security or insurance, or are self-employed,” says Ranade.  Read More: Why India’s Next Election Will Last 44 Days Why investment in India sees sluggish growth When East Asian economies like Korea, Malaysia, and China reached a similar stage to India's development in the past, it was mostly due to export-led growth in textiles, garments, or electronic assembly. But even an expanding labor force doesn’t lead most Indian workers to find productive, higher-paying, and higher-quality jobs. “We have not seen the same kind of phenomenon because India did not aggressively embrace labor intensive exports as a big driver of growth,” says Ranade. There’s a history behind why: After the country gained independence from British rule, it began implementing more protectionist economic policies out of suspicion of international trade and colonial exploitation. That included self-reliance in the capital goods sector and heavy investment in Indian railways, steel companies, and nuclear power. It was, says Ranade, “an import substitution-led model.” Much later, India recognized how international trade could be beneficial. Between 1988 and 1991, it began embracing economic liberalization policies to deregulate industry, pushing industrial growth to a hefty 9.2%. Read More: India’s Income Inequality Is Now Worse Than Under British Rule, New Report Says Since then, however, too much regulation around the large-scale industry and relatively cheaper capital compared to labor has slowed down progress. According to Barclays research, investment exceeded 40% in 2008 but currently stands at 34%. “The ironic thing is that the share of manufacturing in India’s GDP has barely moved an inch since 1991,” says Ranade. Under the Modi administration, “three man-made economic disasters”—demonetization, a “somewhat haphazard” implementation of GST, and pandemic-related lockdowns—have contributed to this, according to Reetika Khera, a professor of economics at the Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi. “Each of these has had a devastating impact on different sections of the economy, especially the vulnerable,” she says. Voters are worried about the bigger picture The government’s inability to create more jobs has been surprising, given that Modi has touted an ambitious “Make in India” program to help ease the burden of doing business in India for over a decade. Another production-linked incentive scheme launched by the government in November 2023 aimed to kickstart manufacturing by offering industrial incentives to boost domestic production. In this year’s federal budget, the government set aside another $134 billion for capital spending to build roads, ports, airports, and railways—mirroring what China did more than three decades ago for economic expansion,  But when the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party unveiled its election manifesto four days before the country's 960 million voters began casting their ballots, it made little mention of what kind of economic policies Modi would pursue in a third term in power. But economists say that’s worrying, since India’s per capita gross domestic product (GDP) hasn’t raised the quality of life for most Indians. According to the World Bank, India currently ranks 147 for its living standards, despite economic growth which projects its economy to become the third-largest in the world by 2027. “The mere growth in the aggregate income of the whole economy is not good enough because it is not diffused to all sections of society,” says Ranade. Instead, the gains have disproportionately gone to India’s elite, or the top 10%. The government has supplemented the lack of jobs and per capita income by becoming more welfarist. Over the years, it has spent money on a range of ventures for nutrition, employment, security, health, and even subsidized cooking gas for poorer households. Still, India’s large domestic economy has proven fairly resilient in the past, and its young population is bound to work to its advantage. “There's also dynamism, entrepreneurship, and the fact that you have a large proportion of self-employed workers in the gig economy,” says Ranade.


Jobs, Inflation And Religious Animus Sway Voters As India Goes To Polls 

For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emailsSign up to our free breaking news emails Rising religious polarisation, unemployment, and inflation dominated the discourse at the polling booth on Friday as India voted in the first phase of the national elections that will determine if Narendra Modi lands a rare third term as prime minister. As many as 969 million Indians are registered to vote across the seven phases of the election spread over a month and a half. They will elect 543 members of the lower house of parliament, the Lok Sabha. The party or coalition that secures a simple majority will appoint the prime minister and form the next government. The votes will be counted and the results declared on 4 June. In Muzaffarnagar in western Uttar Pradesh – the country’s largest and most populous state – The Independent spoke with voters who pinned their hope on a government that can tackle rising food costs, assure jobs and keep the peace between various communities. Muzaffarnagar is a microcosm of northern India, a largely agrarian region beset by dwindling farming incomes, lack of formal employment and communal polarisation, which seems to have deepened since over 60 people were killed, the majority of them Muslim, and several women raped in sectarian violence nearly 11 years ago. There’s also a class divide though it’s not as pronounced. While working class voters were most worried about unemployment and the rising cost of living, the relatively better off fixated on sectarianism, development, and muscular nationalism, which happen to be the main campaign planks of Mr Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Salma, 36, had just cast her vote when The Independent found her outside a polling booth at the Jain Kanya Pathshala College, waiting for her family to join her. “The main issue is unemployment,” said Ms Salma, who doesn’t use a second name. “We need work. What else does a poor person need?” Her concerns were echoed by Lakshmi, 40, a daily wage worker who also goes by a single name. “Look at the price of flour, of dal. Life for the poor is tough. What can a poor person do?” Jeele Singh, 58, a labourer from Sisona village, complained that all talk of vikas, or development, were “only words”. “What vikas are they talking about? Come visit my village and see the condition of the roads for yourself,” Mr Singh, a Dalit voter, said. Dalits are a marginalised community once regarded as “untouchable” in the Hindu social hierarchy. “In spite of our meagre means we educate our children but where are the jobs? One of my daughters has completed her BA and she is still unemployed. Is the government thinking of the youth?” Fellow voter, Anish Tyagi, 38, interrupted Mr Singh. “Temples are now being built in Muslim countries. When has that happened before?” Mr Tygai asked. “Wherever Modi goes, he walks the red carpet. He’s being welcomed everywhere.” But another voter, Anuj Kumar, 34, disagreed with Mr Tyagi. “Prices are high. They closed one primary school in our village citing low attendance. The poor have no option left, they are getting poorer and poorer. The focus should be on education and schools, rather than temples and priests.” People line up outside a polling station in Dugeli village of Dantewada in central India’s Chhattisgarh state on 19 April 2024 (AFP via Getty Images) At MPL Girls Inter College on Roorkee Road, Vipin Kumar, 63, and his wife Kavita Bhatla, 58, stood beaming after casting their votes. Their son and daughter-in-law were on their way from Delhi to cast their ballots in their hometown. “I want peace and development for the country,” Ms Bhatla said. She felt proud, she said, that India was being “acknowledged as a power to reckon with” on the international stage. “There is development, sure,” voter Mohammad Ikram said, “but only in Hindu areas of Muzaffarnagar.” “Look at the streets and nooks in Muslim areas and you will get the idea. Look at Khalapur, Rehmat Nagar, Jaima Nagar, Mimlana Road, Shahabuddin Road. Development should be for every community. Not just one.” Mr Ikram accused the ruling party of dividing Hindus and Muslims and worried about the bigotry he had seen rise on social media in recent years. “When you beat up Muslims for praying, when you cover up mosques and demolish homes of Muslims, what kind of development is that?” he asked. At St Mary Public School down the Roorkee Road, Ravi Pal, 32, sat with his friends outside a polling booth. He was disgruntled. He graduated with a degree in civil engineering from Shri Venkateshwara University in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, in 2018, but didn’t find a job. “All governments make roads and install street lights,” he said. “What about unemployment? Has the government made sure the youth find employment? All my friends are unemployed despite having degrees from government-run colleges.” He complained that his neighbourhood didn’t even get basic services such as trash collection until three months ago. “Only when the elections came near did they start cleaning,” he said. Sher Singh, 52, was angry about the new Agnipath scheme, under which the Indian Army now recruits men aged 17-and-a-half to 21 for four-year “tours of duty”, similar to systems in the US and UK, rather than for lifetime service. A quarter of the recruits will be retained at the end of the contracts and the rest let go with a severance package. “What will they do when the four years end?” Mr Singh asked. A woman shows her inked finger after casting her ballot in India’s general election at a polling station in Nagaon in the northeastern state of Assam on 19 April 2024 (AFP via Getty Images) On the contrary, Vinod Sharma, 58, said the incumbent government had done “good work” but wouldn’t go into detail. Responding to fellow voters’ complaints about rising cost of living, he said: “If earlier the daily wage was 300, now it is 500. If prices have gone up, the wage has also gone up.” What about concerns about the erosion of religious freedom under the Modi government? “These are small matters that opposition politicians try to make into big issues,” he said. Sanjeev Kumar, a lawyer, said he wanted the ruling party to implement a population control law. “Opposition parties say there is unemployment but the problem is that the population is huge,” he said. “So I want the government to implement this law.” The BJP and its allies have long sought to fan demographic worry among the Hindu majority by claiming, falsely, that Indian Muslims were growing their population faster than Hindus. Sunil Kumar, a 40-year-old farmer, said he supported calls by political and religious leaders aligned with the ruling party to demolish mosques in Uttar Pradesh’s Mathura and Kashi and build temples in their stead. “We are from Sanatan Dharam,” he said, referring to the Hindu religion. “Why did Muslims demolish temples?” he added, referring to claims that mediaeval Muslim rulers destroyed Hindu temples to build mosques. “We support these calls.”