Abhijit
The ruling BJP has been projecting the foreign policy of the “new India” as one that has created a respectable image of India in the world. The foreign minister, Mr. S. Jaishankar, can now be seen chest thumping on international stage and talking about India’s “national interests”, that India is ready to play a larger role on world stage, and that “India matters in a polarized world”. At times he has even been critical of the foreign policies of the United States and Europe. The very usage of the term “national interest” has historically been a prerogative of the western countries. However, the recent assertion of India’s “national interests”, that is the interests of the Indian capitalist class, is nothing but the continuation of the policies of the Indian state since its independence, albeit now with more nationalist phrase-mongering around it. News channels like the WION (World is One News) on the lines of BBC have now been launched by the Indian bourgeoisie, which constantly keep attacking the policies of the “west”, US imperialism, the interests of China, and raising issues related to India’s “national interests”. Many recent events including the Russia-Ukraine war, the renewed buzz about a permanent position for India on the security council, and the negotiations in the WTO have once again proven that the Indian capitalist class is not a comprador capitalist class, but a politically-independent one. However, this has nothing to do with the “nationalist” BJP, rather it has always been a politically-independent capitalist class, that has grown in strength and is negotiating its place on the world stage more vigorously now.
India’s Position in the Russia-Ukraine War
India has continued to maintain its position of ‘neutrality’ in the wars among other countries and did the same even in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, disregarding all the pressures of the United States. India has even refused to condemn the invasion by Russia. India not only abstained from voting against Russia in the security council but also stayed away from the proposals put forth by Russia. The Ukrainian diplomats in India tried all their best, referred to the Mahabharata and compared Modi to Chanakya, referred to the “status of Modi Ji” and mentioned that “Modi Ji is one of the most powerful and respected leaders in the world”, but Modi government chose to ignore him. Not only this, India continued purchases of Russian oil, at much cheaper rates, and built a strategic reserve out of it. Modi met, ignoring the global pressures, the Russian foreign minister Lavrov on 1st April after the Russian invasion had already been continuing for two months. The USA has continuously criticized India on the Ukraine issue, but at the same time, India continues to be a part of the ‘Quad’ strategic alliance consisting of India, the USA, Australia and Japan. While the west decided to remove Russia from the ‘Swift’ banking payments system, India continued negotiations with Russia to promote its own “Ru-pay” system, and to promote direct exchange of Rupee with Ruble. After the war has continued for more than six months now, India continues to maintain the same position. When confronted by western media on the opportunistic stand by India, foreign minister S Jaishankar was found saying that “Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe’s problems are the world’s problems, but the world’s problems are not Europe’s problems.” These developments clearly show that the Indian government, representing the interests of the Indian capitalist class, has rejected all the pressures from USA, Europe and taken independent decisions.
Buying cheap Russian oil is a necessity for the Indian capitalist class, to ensure that the prices of fuel in the country remain within a limit, thus limiting inflation and containing the upward pressure on wages, thus protecting against a potential fall in the rate of profit. This is also necessary to maintain political stability, by limiting the anger of the people again inflation. At the same time to ensure its political independence, the ‘national security’ concerns mandate that relationships with Russia should continue as Russia is a major weapons supplier to India. However, the threat of Chinese imperialism and the strengthening of the Sino-Russian axis leads the Indian bourgeoisie to keep its options open and align with the USA also.
‘National Interest’ is the Interest of the Capitalist Class
In the context of Russia-Ukraine war, the term “national interest” of India has been used multiple times defending its position. Finance minister Nirmala Sitaraman justified the purchase of Russian oil at cheaper rate saying that it is in India’s ‘national interest’. Foreign Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has used the term multiple times in front of the western and Indian media.
“National interest” is the terminology that the bourgeoisie uses to represent the collective class interests of the capitalist class as the interests of all the people. The capitalist class rules by convincing the working class and common working masses that the interests of the capitalist class are their interests too. That is why Prime Minister Modi, while giving a speech from Red Fort, says that it is the capitalist class that is the creator of the wealth and the country should respect them, and that is also the reason that Congress government bestows the highest bourgeois civilian honor, the “Bharat Ratna”, on an industrialist like JRD Tata.
India’s Recent Engagements with WTO
A variety of opinions have emerged around India’s recent engagement in June 2022 with World Trade Organization (WTO). The BJP supporters are thumping chests claiming that India stood by its farmers, fisher-folks, and small and medium enterprises while other bourgeois parties are claiming that India surrendered before the world capitalists. The truth lies in the middle. Neither has the Modi government protected the interests of the common working masses nor has it surrendered before imperialism. The Modi government has tried its best to protect the interests of the Indian bourgeoisie while trying to project it as the ‘national interest’.
The World Trade Organization, with its 164 members, exists to form a consensus among member countries on the rules for world trade. The capitalist class of each country tries to maximize their share of the surplus extracted all over the world, and also within their own country, and all such contradictions between the interests of imperialist powers and the independent countries find their expression on the forum of the WTO.
The WTO’s 12th Ministerial Conference took place from 12 to 17 June 2022 at WTO headquarters in Geneva. Here the WTO has agreed to allow the member countries to produce COVID vaccines without authorization from patent holders for 5 years. India’s stand on limited and temporary five-year suspension of the patent rights over COVID vaccines speaks for its advocacy of the vaccine industry of the country. India was one of the leaders of the block of countries demanding suspension of patent rights on COVID vaccines. It should be noted that India does not stand against patents in general, or even patents in pharma or vaccine industries either. The demand was to only ensure additional profits for the Indian vaccine industry, taking advantage of the pandemic situation. The statement by Piyush Goyal, Commerce Minister, that Indian vaccine producers are “ready, willing and happy” to support other countries set up units, clearly speaks for itself.
The issue related to subsidies to the fishing industry has been stuck in the WTO for almost 21 years. Over-fishing in deep waters is endangering the production of fish itself. As a “solution” the so-called developed countries proposed a waiver of the subsidies(!) being given to the fishing industry. India has more than 35 lakh people engaged in sea-water fishing and in a competition against the corporate fishing lobby, the survival of these working masses depends on government subsidies also. This class of fishers is a petty-bourgeois class and the support of which is necessary for the stability of the political regime. A political class can rule or establish its rule only if it can win over the vast majority of masses by making its own political line hegemonic among them. This is precisely what is at stake in the political struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. In other words, the bourgeoisie must win over the masses to its side and sometimes it requires giving various concessions. The petty-bourgeoisie is an important potential ally, albeit a vacillating one, for the bourgeoisie, even though its general political interests do not lie with that of the capitalist class but with the proletariat. That is why India opposed the said proposal, considering the long-term political interests of the ruling capitalist class, and thus the original proposal was rejected by WTO. Finally, it was agreed upon to not give subsidies to illegal, unregulated, unregistered, and over-fishing industries, the meaning of which will be interpreted by respective states, thus allowing India to continue its subsidies.
For a long time, India has stood firm on the issue of food security against the western pressures. The UPA (United Progressive Alliance) governments also stood by the same. The Russia-Ukraine war, Ukraine being world’s largest wheat producer, has enhanced the seriousness of the issue. The European Union and the USA proposed free trade in food grains, which India opposed. On the other side India also opposed the WTO restrictions on sale of food grains accumulated in public stocks. With both these seemingly contradictory positions, the Indian government has tried to serve the interests of the agricultural capitalist class by opposing on one side the onslaught of food-grains from all over the world into the Indian market, thus trying to keep the assurance of profits to agricultural capitalists in the country, and on the other side keeping its options open for export to the world, when it is beneficial to the same class.
India also took a stand to allow imposition of customs duty on import of electronic goods (music, movies, video games, etc.), even though the agreement could not be reached. This shows the attempts by the Indian state to increase its share of the surplus in world trade.
In summary, the positions taken by India at the WTO clearly demonstrate that the Indian state is acting to protect the interests of the Indian capitalist class and not obeying by the dictates of this or that imperialist block. It has consistently tried to protect its long-term business and political interests and increase its share of the surplus extracted within the country and in world trade.
The Misconception About the Comprador Bourgeoisie
The misconception prevalent among many communist groups and organizations in India is that the bourgeoisie of India is a comprador bourgeoisie. Such groups and organizations will find themselves at a loss of words to explain this phenomenon without crediting the fascist BJP for pursuing “independent” foreign policy. As a result of the premise of the comprador bourgeoisie, many misconceptions galore. Misconceptions like the Indian economy is run by the IMF and the World Bank, that the policies of Globalization, Privatization and Liberalization (GPL) were ‘imposed’ upon India, and India was made to accede to the terms of GATT under heavy pressure and to the extent that the policies of Delhi are all decided in Washington.
Mao Zedong referred to a section of the Chinese capitalist class as ‘comprador’. China in 1920s was a country where the mode of production was essentially feudal and the capitalist development that had progressed little was largely at the behest of imperialist capital, mainly driven by the USA, Russia, Japan, Britain, etc. The Chinese agents of this imperialist capital were mainly of commercial and bureaucratic character and their entire existence depended on the imperialist capital. Mao called such a capitalist class as ‘comprador’ capitalist class. In fact, Mao had made it categorically clear in his 1926 essay ‘Analysis of Classes in the Chinese Society’ and 1939 essay ‘Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party’ that it is only the commercial and bureaucratic bourgeoisie that can be of comprador character and a mainly and essentially industrial bourgeoisie cannot be of comprador character as it needs its own market. The Chinese bourgeoisie was essentially and mainly a commercial and bureaucratic bourgeoisie and that was the reason why its character was that of a comprador of the imperialist countries.
However, the bourgeoisie of India that developed during the Indian freedom struggle, the big capitalist class consisting of the houses like Tata, Birla, Mafatlal, Thakurdas, Bajaj, etc., was an industrial-financial capitalist class and not a mercantile-bureaucratic capitalist class. An industrial capitalist produces goods and services and hence the industrial capital always yearns for control over markets and sources of raw materials, and hence political independence over its national territory. That is why only a mercantile-bureaucratic capitalist class, and not an industrial-financial capitalist class, can be a “comprador” bourgeoisie.
The Indian bourgeoisie, therefore, is a politically-independent bourgeoisie, and not a comprador of any imperialist camp. Its relationship with imperialism is one of a ‘junior partner’ and not that of an agent or comprador. As a junior partner, it gets a minority share of the surplus extracted all over the world, but as a politically-independent class, it has ensured that it retains a major portion of the surplus appropriated in India. It also tried to constantly grow its share of surplus in world capitalist system.
Now, just like in any other business partnership, a junior partner may give in to the pressures of the senior partner, or keep content with whatever deal is possible at a given point in time, or sometimes even bend a little more, but at times also stretch the relationship to its limits, become a senior or equal partner if its strength grows to that proportion, and break a relationship if needed, but under no circumstances does it give up its political independence of decision making. Thus, the foreign policy of India has also been one of a politically-independent capitalist class, and not of a comprador class.
A Brief Overview of the Policy of ‘Non-Alignment’ or ‘Neutrality’
The foreign policy of the Modi government is a continuation of the policy of ‘non-alignment’ instantiated by Nehru, although with some differences which attribute themselves to the growing strength of the Indian capitalist class in the last 75 years.
The ‘non-aligned’ policy of India, contrary to its literal meaning, was not a policy of not aligning with any of the two imperialist camps led by the USA and social-imperialist USSR, but one of aligning selectively with both, trying to take advantage of the inter-imperialist rivalry, and benefiting at times from the USA and at times from the USSR, effectively to secure its own “national interests”.
The Indian capitalist class was a weak capitalist class at the time of independence of India. Though weak in its capital prowess compared to the imperialist powers, it was an industrial-financial capitalist class. It was also politically a well-organized class constituted in its leading party, the Indian National Congress, and it was capable enough to formulate concrete policies for running the country while securing its own interests. A variety of plans proposed before India became independent, including the Bombay Plan of the Tata and Birla, the Mahalnobis plan, the Visvesvaraya plan, Nehru plan, etc. all had an agreement on the mixed mode of economy. The so called ‘Nehruvian socialist’ model was nothing but an economic model to bolster the strength of the private capitalist class for whom the consumer sector was reserved, financing it with loans using the national savings of the common people. The policies of import substitution and severe restrictions on the import of goods and capital, that is, strict protectionism, were to protect the Indian markets for the Indian capitalist class and against the onslaught of imperialist capital. The policy of ‘non-alignment’, on which many of the newly-liberated countries had an agreement, was a policy pursued by the independent bourgeoisie of many of these countries, with more-or-less tactical use of its political independence to benefit from inter-imperialist rivalry.
The political independence of India’s ruling bourgeoisie can be seen in every policy that it pursued since independence. It can be witnessed in taking help at times from USSR, and at times from the USA to construct its steel plants, procuring foreign loans and allowing limited foreign investment but always trying to bring it through a joint venture with Indian capital, refusing to take the conditional help of the USA in the India-China war, refusing to bow before the pressure of the USA in the Bangladesh liberation war, giving impetus to capitalist farming with the help of the American aid in Green Revolution, kicking-out of Coca Cola and IBM by the Janata party government, the small experiments with Neo-liberal policies starting in the decade of the 1980s. These are just some illustrative examples of how the foreign policies of a politically-independent capitalist class were at play to preserve its national interests, with its own changing strength, changing state of Indian economy and the world geopolitics.
The era of GPL that was ushered in since 1991 again kindled the debate on the character of the Indian state. Theories like `Globalization is re-colonization’ or the ‘the comprador character of the Indian capitalist class’ abounded. While these theories were not rooted in correct Marxist analysis and lacked the basic concrete class analysis of Indian society, they have also been proven false by the development track of India in last three decades.
GPL: The choice made by an independent ‘junior partner’ capitalist class
The limitations of the Nehruvian model of state-sponsored capitalist development were evident since the decade of the late-1960s and the 1970s. After a period of confusion and knee-jerk reactions, experiments with the policies of liberalization started in the late-1970s or early 1980s. Policies like tightening of public expenditure, “Operation Forward” of 1982, stimulus to private sector through deregulation, removal of price controls, few measures against license raj, entry of foreign capital in sectors like automobile (Suzuki) and chemicals (Escorts), emphasis on more ‘efficient’ public sector in the late-1970s and the early-1980s are few indicators of the changing direction of the Indian economy in the the 1980s. These changes were the initiative of the Indian bourgeoisie, which had grown in strength now, to gain a larger foothold both in Indian and world markets. When the economic crisis struck in 1990, and the gold reserves had to be mortgaged, the Indian bourgeoisie, which did not give up its political independence, used this as a blessing in disguise, to further its partnership with the imperialist capital and turn Indian economy into a free reign for private capital. Thus, the acceptance of the GATT agreement and policies of GPL since 1991, was only a significant quantitative change on a line of development that qualitatively was always the line of a politically-independent capitalist class.
The Indian bourgeoisie which was weak at the time of independence had now gained enough strength and accumulated enough capital to think of competing on the world scale, and at the same time understood the importance and inevitability of becoming a part of the globalized world market, which offered challenges and opportunities at the same time. India did not follow a path of capitalist development under GPL policies like the East Asian Tigers, but the relatively more mature and politically-independent and stable capitalist class chose a path of selective and step-wise implementation of GPL policies, while preserving its hold over the Indian market, trying to maximize its options in the world markets, and collaborating with foreign capital considering the long-term interests of its own development.
At a time when the fall of the social imperialist USSR led to the illusion of a unipolar world even among many “Marxist” thinkers (who had forgotten the teachings of Lenin!), India kept its options open while aligning more with the US block. However, after the capitalist class of India has gained sufficient strength and the inter-imperialist rivalry has again surfaced visibly on the world stage since the late-1990s and especially the early-2000s, India has again started negotiating more with the imperialist powers, keeping its own interests at the core. Throughout this period India has continued the policies of so-called ‘non-alignment,’ kept its options open and at times sided with the US-lead or China-Russia-lead imperialist block and at times chosen not to take sides.
India has consistently, chosen not to oppose any imperialist power in the war, may it be the Iraq War waged by the US or the Ukraine War waged by Russia, at the same time opportunistically talking about peace and democracy India has also chosen to diplomatically evade taking a strong stance on the Taiwan issue, both to use it as a pressure tactic against China and to keep options open for better business ties with Chinese capital. It is the so-called ‘non-aligned’ policy that India has consistently used to indirectly support imperial wars, by not taking any sides to preserve its own national interests.
The policies pursued by Modi government are a step forward in this direction only. The apparent ‘nationalist’ fervor is a result of the increased strength of the capitalist class which now counts among the richest in the world, the weakening of the imperialist camp led by the US over the last two decades, intensification of the imperialist rivalry, and, particularly after the economic crisis of 2008-09, the strengthening of the economies of many of the so-called ‘Third World’ countries, emergence of blocs like BRICS as a pressure bloc in negotiating a better share of the surplus appropriated at the world level and the strengthening of the Russia-China imperialist axis are some of the factors that contribute to the apparently ‘emboldened’ stance that India’s foreign policy is taking in recent times.
That is why when Piyush Goyal, the Commerce minister of India, denied meeting Jeff Bezos of Amazon in January 2022, he was representing a politically-independent bourgeoisie and not a comprador bourgeoisie. The arguments put forth by the BJP that India’s foreign policy was that of a compromising nation and Modi government has brought “prestige” and pursued a “path-breaking” foreign policy are only political gimmicks to score brownie points over the Congress. The Congress and the BJP are both trusted parties of the big capitalist class, although in a period of economic crisis, it is the fascist BJP that is the overwhelmingly preferred choice of the big bourgeoisie, but the foreign policies of both represent more of a continuity than a rupture and the interests of the big capitalist class only.
Globalization and the Growing Might of the Indian Capitalist Class
The policies of GPL that have brought the most unimaginable miseries upon the working class of India have benefited the capitalist class like never before. In 1991, India had zero billionaires. The number has grown to 128 in 2022. The Indian economy has grown more than 9 times, the Union government budget size has grown by 19 times, the forex reserves have grown from a low of nearly 1 billion dollars in 1991 to more than 540 billion dollars (crossing nearly 640 billion dollars in Dec 2021) as of 2022, capitalists like Adani and Ambani count among the richest in the world, Indian economy has escaped relatively less affected during the economic crisis of 2008-09, and has remained one of the fastest growing economies over decades, and has continuously attracted more and more FDI topping more than 83 billion dollars in 2021-22.
Not only this the Indian businesses have become more competitive on the world stage in many diverse areas in including IT (TCS, Wipro, Infosys, Tech Mahindra, HCL, etc.), Automobile (Tata, Mahindra, Kinetic, Bajaj, Maruti, Force Motors, etc.), Electricity (Adani, Ambani, Jindal, etc.), Media (Zee, TV-18, etc.), Pharmaceuticals (Sun Pharma, Reddy’s Laboratories, Cipla, Torrent, etc.), Steel (Tata, Jindal, etc.), Chemicals (Ambani, Lohia, etc.), etc. 53.89 percent of India’s GDP comes from services sector, with industry accounting for 25.92 percent and Agriculture for 20.19 percent. This demonstrates the diversification of Indian economy and also the emergence of a strong national market. It is control over this market that constitutes the bargaining power of the Indian bourgeoisie.
India paid of all loans of the IMF by 2000 and has become a lender to the IMF since 2003. This demonstrates that Indian bourgeoisie used the policies of GPL to its advantage and utilized them to further gain strength.
Much hullabaloo is made around the foreign currency loans that India has, and it is highlighted that the foreign debt has risen over the three decades of liberalization. However, the GDP of India has grown much more than the debt, and the debt to GDP ratio has remained well within the manageable range, accepted by the bourgeois economics, all the time.
India Has Asserted its “National Interests” Many Times Especially in the Last Two Decades
Indian bourgeoisie did not give up its political independence after the acceptance of the GPL policies is evident from many instances in which India has stood its ground and did not yield to international pressure, led most times by the US.
India conducted its second nuclear tests in 1998, sustained the economic sanctions imposed by the USA, and also negotiated with USA to circumvent or uplift the sanctions.
In 2014, when the Devyani Khobragade incident occurred, wherein the United States arrested Devyani, the deputy counsel in New York, handcuffed and strip-searched her, and also removed a parking spot for Indian ambassador in Washington, India retaliated by removing the concrete barricades from a road near US. embassy, and raising the issue of use of an embassy club by non-diplomats.
In 2017, India told United States that it wishes to keep its embassy in North Korea open, at a time when the United States was giving a serious push to isolate North Korea completely.
India has refused to follow US dictates and threats of sanction regarding its relationship with Iran and continues its trade relations with Iran, and also engagement with the building of the Chabahar port.
In 2018, India did not give in to aggressive US pressure to open its dairy products market for US products. Citing religious issues at helm, India was willing to reconsider the issue of price cap on medical equipment.
In 2019, before the visit by the then President Donald Trump, India told the United States that it will act in its own “national interest” and proceeded with the purchase of Sukhoi S-400 fighter jets from Russia, ignoring threats by US of imposition of the CAATSA Act. United States, even then pushed India against Iran, calling Iran “largest state sponsor of terror”, but India did not give in to US demands to suspend oil purchases from Iran.
India has repeatedly rejected the pressures from the US in its negotiations with the GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services) and stood for a food security law in India.
India condemned the unauthorized incursion by the US missile destroyer USS John Paul in India’s Exclusive Economic Zone near the Lakshadweep Islands in April 2021.
In June 2021, India told the European Union that if it does not grant acceptance to India’s vaccination certificate issued through Cowin portal, then India will also take reciprocal countermeasures against Europeans.
In 2021, India has successfully negotiated the change of climate change conditions from a ‘phase out’ to ‘phase down’ as its energy security largely depends on coal. India has consistently put the so-called developed countries in a tight-spot, accusing them of not meeting their own emission cut-down norms and demanding more leeway for its own capitalist development.
Strategically India has not closed its options. India is a part of the ‘Quad’ that represents a strategic alliance against China, and thus effectively against the Sino-Russian axis but at the same time India is also a part of the BRICS economic alliance which includes China, and also the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a trade and business alliance that is also trying to be a strategic alliance, led by China.
India has continued the Atmanirbhar Bharat project despite reservations from the US-led imperialist block and has emphasized on protectionist policies in an era of global economic volatility.
Of course, these are not issues to feel proud of from a proletarian stand-point but an objective concrete analysis of the concrete realities so that we can understand our enemy in a better way and strategize and tacticize to fight against it effectively.
Many other instances can be cited to illustrate that the Indian bourgeoisie has always fought its position on international forums, to claim more and more share of the surplus generated all over the world, and to secure its strategic and long-term economic interests. All these facts highlight nothing but the continuation of foreign policies of a politically-independent bourgeoisie.
The Future of India’s Foreign Policy
Lenin’s theory of imperialism has continued to prove itself time and again. The haze around the myth of the unipolar world which was created due to a temporary optical illusion after the collapse of the social-imperialist USSR, has decisively subsided, and the world inter-imperialist rivalry is once again explicitly visible, though it was always there during this period. The Sino-Russian Axis is sharpening its teeth against the USA-European Axis. In this situation, however, it will be a folly to conclude that India has aligned itself towards any imperialist axis. The growing inter-imperialist rivalry will keep creating complex geo-political questions that will keep pushing India towards readjustments of its alliances, including aligning with a particular axis at one time and aligning with another axis at others, nevertheless keeping the “national” interests of Indian bourgeoisie at the center.
