AKD in New Delhi: Some thoughts about the ‘Indian policy’ of a progressive government

By Ramindu Perera
Senior Lecturer, Department of Legal Studies, Open University of Sri Lanka

The recent visit of a delegation from the National People’s Power (NPP), led by Anura Kumara Dissanayaka, to India has sparked an intriguing discussion within our political circles. While some parties have seized upon this opportunity to mock the JVP, recalling their anti-Indian stance in the 1980s, others have raised concerns about the potential dangers of yielding to Indian regional hegemony. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the invitation extended by the Indian government to an NPP delegation for discussions signifies a significant turning point. The NPP, with only three members in Parliament, was until very recently perceived as a marginal political party.

However, in the post-2022 political landscape, the NPP has emerged as a pivotal player, marking the breakdown of the two-party system that has characterized our politics since independence. The decision by India to invite the leader of the NPP for discussions, rather than the main opposition leader in Parliament, indicates that New Delhi is keenly aware of the rapidly evolving political dynamics in its neighboring country.

The NPP positions itself as a progressive, left-leaning alternative to the established political order. Given that the rise of a left-leaning political bloc as a major force in Sri Lanka’s politics is an unprecedented development, several significant considerations arise regarding the nature of the foreign policy such a government would (or should) pursue.

Rise of multipolarism

The primary contradiction defining the contemporary international order lies in the tension between uni-polarity and multi-polarity. The Western-dominated unipolar world order that emerged in the aftermath of the Cold War is steadily unraveling, giving way to an increasingly multi-polar landscape characterized by the presence of multiple hegemonic blocs. On one hand, this multi polarization is propelled by the ascension of China. While Western economies faltered in the wake of the 2009 economic crisis, China adeptly weathered the storm and is emerging as a substantial counterbalance to Western hegemony.

Second, there is an increasing alignment among major economies of the Global South. BRICS has become the platform of this alignment. Established in 2009, the BRICS organization comprised five emerging economies —Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Recently, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates officially joined the platform. BRICS is envisioned as an alternative to Western dominance in the international order and has been promoting policies like de-dollarization and establishing a New Development Bank to strengthen the leverage of the Global South.

For developing countries like Sri Lanka, emerging multi polarization provides multiple opportunities, in terms of trade, investment, and diversification of development finance. The TINA doctrine suggesting that there is no alternative to the dominant neo-liberal framework that became mainstream aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union has been a severe obstacle for countries like Sri Lanka to imagine an independent path for development.

India’s dual role

India presents a curious case in this emerging international order. The dualism evident in the Indian foreign policy has implications on countries like Sri Lanka too. There is no need to recall the historic anti-imperialist credentials of India as a founder member of the Non-aligned Movement. On the one hand, India seems to be continuing this legacy by becoming a part of the BRICS and taking a more independent stance on issues like the Russia-Ukraine war, resisting Western pressure.

But on the other hand, after the 1990s, India has become a close ally of the United States. India participates in the QUAD initiative founded by the United States to contain China’s advent. India calls this policy as ‘multi-alignment’ which denotes a departure from its historic non-aligned approach.

Furthermore, India also shares a complicated relationship with China. Since the 1962 Indo-China war, relations between the two countries have been always strained. It is no secret that India treats the Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean in a suspicious light. India’s attitude towards governments of smaller neighboring countries is largely characterized by this rivalry. Increased engagement with the rising East offers new opportunities for smaller South Asian nations, but it might also invite the suspicion of India. These are the geo-political realities that any future government in Sri Lanka —including a potential NPP government will have to deal with.

Balancing contradictions

Thus, at the foreign policy level, balancing these contradictions becomes a foremost task. It is no secret that as an emerging regional power, India also shares hegemonic ambitions. The dialectic of India’s growth is that while it leads to undue interventions in internal matters of neighboring countries, it also opens up new possibilities at the economic front with expanding markets. Japan in the 1960s spoke about the ‘flying geese paradigm’, a metaphor that characterized the relationship between Japan and other industrializing East Asian economies. In this paradigm, growth in Japan is the leading ‘goose’ — that accompanies other smaller geese like South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong towards further growth and development.

Could the expanding influence of India prompt consideration of a flying geese model within the context of South Asia? How might Sri Lanka leverage India’s burgeoning domestic markets to foster its own industrial and economic development? These are weighty inquiries that demand thoughtful contemplation and scholarly examination.

Sri Lanka should be smart enough to gain from new openings like the growth of India and increasing multi polarity while not compromising its sovereignty and independence. Of course, compromises are a part of diplomacy, but certain lines cannot be allowed to be crossed. Sri Lanka being a part of an international military pact, or allowing foreign military bases in Sri Lanka is an example of such lines. What a future progressive government in Sri Lanka needs is a Lula De Silva approach to foreign relations. The Brazilian President during his first two terms (2002-2010) was a well-known critic of United States imperialism. However, during the office, he managed to successfully lead Brazil, avoiding an outright confrontation with the United States, but also not compromising friendly relations with countries like China, Russia, and neighboring Cuba and Venezuela.

Historical rivalries

NPP’s increased engagement at the diplomatic front indicates that the party has ceased to think only as a party of the opposition but has seriously started thinking as a party in government. It is well known that the idea of ‘Indian expansionism’ was a part of the JVP’s discourse when the party was formed in the 1960s. This term was an invention of Maoist China during the 1962 Indo-China conflict, and the JVP must have inherited it from its predecessor — the Ceylon Communist Party (Peking wing).

Nevertheless, it might be interesting to note that, even in its history, JVP has not always been ‘anti-Indian’ as certain commentators seem to assume. In the aftermath of 1977, when the JVP entered into mainstream politics, the idea of Indian expansionism was discarded, partly because of the criticism that it encouraged a hostile mentality towards the upcountry Tamil community. One might even be surprised to know that the main argument of Rohana Wijeweera’s thesis on the national question — Demala Eelam aragalayata visaduma kumakda? (What is the solution to the Tamil Eelam struggle?) can be said to be a very much sympathetic account of India. In his book, Wijeweera argues that Tamil separatism might become an accomplice of Western imperialism, that aims to destabilize India which was following a pro-Soviet foreign policy at the time.

The talk about Indian expansionism reappeared in the JVP’s discourse only after 1987, when the Indo-Lanka agreement was signed, and the Indian Peace Keeping Force entered Sri Lanka. JVP viewed this intervention in a hostile light. The re-founded JVP in the 1990s removed reference to Indian expansionism from its literature but has been critical about certain hegemonic type behaviors of Sri Lanka’s powerful neighbor.

Regardless of the merits and drawbacks of these historical positions, any reasonable individual would acknowledge that rivalries within a specific historical context cannot, or should not, endure indefinitely. The Vietnamese people valiantly fought against the United States during the Vietnam War, yet the same Communist Party engaged in economic cooperation with them following the 1986 Doi-Moi reforms. This wasn’t because Vietnam perceived America to have ceased being imperialist, but rather because they skillfully balanced idealism and realism. In international relations, realism devoid of idealism is morally questionable, whereas idealism divorced from realism can prove to be disastrous.