A Bit Of Galbraith And A Vision In 4-D

In this stimulating collection of 63 essays and columns written between 1994 and 2004, Baru unravels the complex linkages between India’s economic, foreign and strategic policies. He convincingly argues in favour of India’s ambition for a higher rate of growth to meet the 4-D challenge of Development, Defence, Diplomacy and the Diaspora (although I’m ambivalent on Diaspora being in the same league as the other Ds). Baru reasons that over time higher growth rates of the economy will not only reduce poverty, illiteracy and backwardness, but also be a springboard to enhance India’s military and strategic capabilities.

Baru is persuasive in recommending that India must expand its bilateral relationships (through a Look East and Look West policy), while meeting the challenges of globalisation, and vigorously participating in emerging regional, economic and security groupings. He supports the assertion of Ashley Tellis that a growth rate of 7 per cent or higher "inexorably transforms India into a great power". The bottomline for India is higher economic growth.

While none of these ideas appears either heretical or revolutionary, Baru’s contribution is in reminding us that India still lags behind many countries.

The primacy of economics in foreign policy has been followed by major powers for decades, and has been a historical imperative since the dawn of history. R.N. Cooper’s 1972 essay titled ‘Trade Policy is Foreign Policy’ has been the underpinning of US foreign policy. Equally business-driven, the British Foreign Service encourages its officers to sharpen their commercial experience by serving in private, while the Canadians merged their commerce ministry with the ministry of external affairs years back. Baru, too, writes admiringly about Dengist China’s success in making trade policy an instrument of foreign policy.

Despite India’s impressive progress on the economic front, the ‘lashkars’ opposing faster growth remain a powerful presence in government and political circles. Disappointingly, Baru shies away from boldly confronting these elements. His grievance that "economic diplomacy has till recently not acquired the primacy it should" is too mild a rap on the knuckles of the negativists.

In reality, the North-South divide within the government is as inflexible as in the conference rooms of the WTO in Geneva. Symbolic of this divide are Lutyens’ sandstone fortresses—the North Block (where the finance ministry resides) and South Block (housing the MEA), which face each other on Raisina Hill. Coordination between the economic and diplomatic wings of the government continues to be less than optimal.

It is no secret that within the MEA, officers prefer to develop skills on the political aspects of their work, given the perception that expertise on economic affairs is not particularly relevant for senior assignments. Of the 28 foreign secretaries appointed since Independence, only four had experience working in economic ministries like commerce, finance, or industry. Even more telling, amongst external affairs ministers, including those who had previously served as finance and commerce ministers, it is difficult to recall anyone who pushed for economic diplomacy significantly.

The issues Baru raises, though, go beyond the MEA’s role in pursuing India’s economic aspirations. Ironically, the economic expansionism he advocates appears to be losing steam under the economist prime minister who started the process in 1991. In his address to the nation on August 15, 2005, the PM rousingly announced that India was "at the threshold of an era", and went on to say: "There are no external constraints on our development. If there are hurdles, they are internal".

The PM seems to be besieged by internal hurdles, forcing him to scale down his vision of India’s future. His foreign and economic policies are held hostage to an assorted coalition of the unwilling: the leftists, the idealists, the cynics, and the opportunists.

Baru’s book deserves to be prescribed reading for policymakers. Sadly, a possible sense of caution on treading on sensitive toes or perhaps an apprehension of transgressing the Common Minimum Programme or even his genuine modesty, prompt him to distance his dreams from the government he serves. He clarifies that his essays "do not reflect the thinking of the Government of India or the Prime Minister". What a shame!