‘US, in irremediable decline’
Harvard University professor advises India to maintain a balance in its relations with the US and Asian neighbours

By Meha Mathur
“India has always been an outward-looking country… In economy, 1947-87 was an aberration, when we looked inwards,” Sugata Bose, Gardiner professor of Oceanic history and affairs, Harvard University, commented during his keynote address at the session on ‘India’s engagement with the world’, organized by ASPEN Institute India, in New Delhi on March 25. Accompanying him were Harpal Singh, chairman, Ranbaxy, and Pramit Pal Chaudhuri, foreign editor, Hindustan Times.

What has been the nature of India’s engagement with the world historically? Is there excessive about India’s engagement with the world today? What are the challenges as India tries to woo the only superpower in the world, the US, which is already facing a downslide? These, and many other issues were discussed during the session.

Bose emphasized that traditionally Indians have loved interacting with the outside world and learning form it. Even at the height of Swadesi Movement, the key figures were not averse to a healthy exchange with the rest of the world. The main visual icon of the movement, Bharat Mata, was done in Japan wash technique. And once the movement was repressed, the key leaders went out into the world to learn. In fact Lala Lajpat Rai, often treated as a communalist, stayed in the US and wrote a seminal work on life in that country.

Coming to the present-day challenge before the country, he said that even as India wanted to play a role in the regional arena, engaging with the middle east, the far east and South Asian neighbours, it had legitimate global ambitions too. And to fulfil those ambitions it was engaging with the only global superpower, the US. “The challenge is how to perform a fine balancing act between these two roles… the challenge is to see that we play global role without jeopardizing our ties with our eastern neighbours.”

Talking about the rise of eastern powers, he said those regions in India and China which had lost out in the eighteenth century with the British advent would rise again. Citing the example of Indians breaking the glass ceiling, he gave the example of an Indian-origin steel magnate buying out a leading steel manufacturing company of the world.

Harpal Singh of Ranbaxy talked about the need to redefine human aspirations. He said India and China together constituted a third of humanity and the old western aspirations imposed on the world were just not sustainable from resources point of view. So the Asian economies must come up with new models of a good life.

At the same time he felt that India has been sitting in the opposition for too long. “We have been taking principled stand, but never with the onus of responsibility.” It was high time India took responsibility, if it wanted its rightful place in the community of nations, he said.

He said India was well-poised to become a leader. “We represent a microcosm of the planet. The diversity is awe-inspiring, and we are managing fairly well. The world will have to deal with similar complexity.” He pointed out other areas where India could lead. “In health and education we will deliver global models… We are world’s best conservers. We try to derive last ounce of value from a resource. The world needs heavy dose of that.” He also lauded the Indians placing premium on knowledge. “Indians inherently believe in the power of knowledge. You meet the most challenged population and there’s the realization that the way for further development is education.” The flip side of it was that while India had not capitalized on that demand, while the West knew how to process that.

Pramit Pal Chaudhuri talked about the isolationist streak among Indians, and gave the example of caste barrier for those crossing the seas. He said that while Indian individuals could be expansionist, the Indian state had the tendency to cut itself off from the rest of the world. It was wary of engaging with the rest of the world for the fear of losing its sovereignty.

Later, responding to a question during the Q&A round, Sugata Bose raised the same point. “We are shackled by the unitary conception of sovereignty.” He said this concept was imposed by the British, which Indians had quickly embraced. Today, the belief was that the overcentralised monolith was the only way to fend off encroachers. He said that the polity of the last two decades was proof of the fact that an overarching unity was compatible with greater freedom to states.

An interesting question that cropped up was how could globalalisation be compatible with the parochial tendency in India. To this Bose replied that it was in fact decline of central power that had allowed reforms to go through.

Another question that came up was, in the face of crisis in the western world, was it coming up with any answer?

While Chaudhuri was optimistic and said that the US was technologically still far ahead of the rest and that it had the ability to convert ideas into commercial success, Bose said,  “The US is in irremediable decline.” But he said there were certain areas where it would still continue to contribute. One is its terrific higher education. A great deal of resources were devoted to fundamental research there, while India was happy about its short-term success in IT.