Ashok Kumar Behuria replies: Imagined community is a term used by Benedict Anderson to explain the formation of nations in different parts of the world. His main argument is that identities may not be real; they are often constructed by socio-economic and political processes. He provides an example of print capitalism, census exercise and anti-colonial consciousness as shaping national identities in colonised societies. There is a counter perspective on identities too, which holds that identities are real and based on shared culture, language and historical linkages. In India, leading social scientist Dipankar Gupta has used the term “ethnopreneurs” to argue that certain leaders shape political discourses about ethnic identities and make them politically volatile only to use them for their own selfish interests to acquire power.

In the post-Cold War period, there has been a surge of movements centred around ethnic identities. The world has witnessed bloody conflicts between ethnic groups in different countries. During this period, many hitherto-dormant ethnic groups have become politically assertive and have claimed their rights to autonomy and sovereign nationhood. This process is likely to continue. Many countries in the world today are multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-national. These countries are vulnerable to assertive identity politics. Hence, they will have to demonstrate resilience and wisdom in accommodating growing demands for autonomy by various ethnic and cultural groups and working out a structure of power sharing through various means— federal reconstitution of power, devolution, consociation politics, etc.

Ashok Kumar Behuria replies: India, like any other country, has to adapt to changing realities and refashion its foreign policy. India has adopted the policy of proactive engagement with all its neighbours since the 1990s. During the mid-1990s, the Gujral doctrine laid emphasis on non-reciprocal concessions to neighbours. Even if his doctrine excluded Pakistan for obvious reasons, India still sought to engage Pakistan despite its reluctance to address the issue of cross-border terrorism in a convincing manner. However, there is a perception that India's neighbourhood policy has not been successful.

A close scrutiny of facts would reveal otherwise. India has managed to develop better economic relations with Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal, despite concerns about some of the countries using China as a balancer. India realises its limitations in convincing its neighbours about the long-term adverse consequences of such engagement. Therefore, it has, through its quiet diplomacy, sought to ensure that any such relationship between any of its neighbours and an extra-regional power must not be aimed at India. On certain occasions, China has asked leaders in the neighbourhood not to build their relationship with it at the cost of India. While there is a growing anxiety in the Indian strategic community about expanding Chinese footprints in the immediate neighbourhood, the changing pattern of international relations warrant a pragmatic and careful pursuit of national interests through cautious diplomacy. It is also to be noted that India's improved relationship with East Asian and South East Asian countries— especially Singapore, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea (and to some extent with Taiwan)— has induced similar concerns in China about Indian intentions.

Given all this, it is not correct (or rather it is too early) to lament the failure of Indian diplomacy and foreign policy.

Ashok Kumar Behuria replies: A basic issue in international politics is how to reconcile one’s interests with values one professes. Most nations claim their commitment to universal values and try their best to conform to them. On many occasions, states find it difficult to conduct their behaviour as per their values. While most countries pledge their commitment to non-interference and peaceful conduct of foreign policy, in reality, their national interests are defined in realist terms that hurtles them in the path of power maximisation and pits them against their co-aspirants. In certain cases, some states are compelled to put aside their values in their quest for survival and dignity. India’s pursuit of nuclear power in spite of its commitment to non-violence and peace could be cited as an example here. The balance-of-power politics around the world, born out of mutual distrust and sense of insecurity, make it often difficult for nations to strictly adhere to values they profess.

Reply: Refer to a recent reply on a similar issue, at http://idsa.in/askanexpert/%20Indiasforeignpolicyinthenext30years

Reply: Refer to the following on IDSA website:

India’s Foreign Policy – Future Options
By Amb. Kanwal Sibal, Third Y B Chavan Memorial Lecture, November 30, 2012
http://idsa.in/keyspeeches/IndiasForeignPolicyFutureOptions

Opening remarks by Dr. Arvind Gupta, DG, IDSA at Workshop on Kautilya
October 18, 2012, Workshop on Kautilya, at
http://idsa.in/speech/KautilyaDGIDSA

Tasks before Indian Foreign Policy
By Dr. Arvind Gupta, May 9, 2012, at
http://idsa.in/idsacomments/TasksbeforeIndianForeignPolicy_ArvindGupta_090512

2012: The Changing Geopolitical Environment and Tasks before Indian foreign policy
By Dr. Arvind Gupta, January 3, 2012, at
http://idsa.in/idsacomments/2012TheChangingGeopoliticalEnvironmentandTasksbeforeIndianforeignpolicy_agupta_030112

India's Defence Cooperation with its Major Traditional & New Strategic Partners
By Amb. Ronen Sen, April 1, 2011, at
http://idsa.in/keyspeeches/AmbassadorRonenSen

Reply: Refer to the IDSA comment, ‘Nonalignment 2.0: A Realist Critique of an Establishmentarian Perspective’ by Rajesh Rajagopalan, at
http://idsa.in/idsacomments/Nonalignment2ARealistCritiqueofAnEstablishme...