You are on page 1of 9

SPECIAL ARTICLE

Indian Scholarship on International Relations and Multilateralism


Deepshikha Shahi

Despite opinions to the contrary, there is much to take away from Indian scholarship in the field of international relations. The originality of Indian scholarship lies in establishing multilateralism as a temporally and spatially contingent concept, the normative and institutional dimensions of which vary in time and space. Indian scholarship views multilateralism as more regional than universal, more dynamic than static and more normative than institutional.

Deepshikha Shahi (deepshikha.shahi@gmail.com) teaches political science at the University of Delhi.

he appraisal of Indias academic and strategic potential to respond to the changing nature of international relations (IR) has been marked by a paradox. While discussing the strengths of India as an emerging power in world politics, the foreign affairs columnist of The New York Times, Thomas L Friedman, praised Indias English-speaking population and its real emphasis on education. However, Friedmans appreciative assessment contradicted the gloomy remark of a senior member of the National Knowledge Commission and professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Amitabh Mattoo, who lamented the insufcient development of Indian scholarship on global issues, especially within the university system. Though the academic discipline of IR in India has traditionally remained fraught with poor conceptualisation due to a variety of reasons, Indias aspiration to attain major power status in the contemporary world order offers a promise for its take-off. The recent Indian theoretical formulations around the theme of multilateralism support this argument. India is aware of the asymmetrically interdependent character of the contemporary world wherein no state can full its aspiration unilaterally. The question of how India perceives the nature of its collaboration with other regional and global powers in the pursuit of its aspiration is central to the Indian scholarship on multilateralism. This Indian scholarship has the following key tenets: (1) Multilateralism is based not on static but on potentially dynamic institutions and rules. (2) Multilateralism is more a function of norms than institutions and the normative shifts in multilateralism can be captured through the sociological process of norm localisation which implies the melding of global norms in accordance with the regional culture. (3) Norm localisation is shaped more effectively by regional than global forces. (4) The leadership provided by the actors of new multilateralism goes beyond the structural leadership offered by the global hegemon. These tenets are relatively ignored in the western discourse on multilateralism. As the west struggles to operationalise the process of effective multilateralism, it needs to develop a theoretical clarity on the subject. The incorporation of the insights provided by the Indian scholarship on multilateralism can create an isomorphic space that can benet both Indian and western IR studies. This article attempts to demonstrate this. It is divided into three sections. The rst section sets out to trace the state of IR theory in India. The second section maps out the distinctiveness of Indian theorising on multilateralism. The third section throws light on Indias experience with multilateralism that
february 2, 2013 vol xlviII no 5
EPW Economic & Political Weekly

50

SPECIAL ARTICLE

could enrich the western understanding on the subject. Finally, the article draws the conclusion that the originality of Indian scholarship lies in establishing multilateralism as a temporally and spatially contingent concept, the normative and institutional dimensions of which vary in time and space. The Indian scholarship views multilateralism as more regional than universal, more dynamic than static and more normative than institutional. The appropriate theoretical comprehension and effective practical implementation of multilateralism necessitate not just a historically rooted analysis but also a sociologically grounded inquiry.
Theorising in Indian IR

There is no Indian school of IR and any evaluation of Indian scholars contribution to IR theory depends on what counts as IR theory (Behera 2007). Methodologically, there are two broad positions on what qualies as theorising in IR rationalist and reectivist.1 Within the realm of Indian rationalist theorising, two signicant contributions can be mentioned. First, the theory of mandala developed by Kautilya in the Arthashastra (4th century BCE); second, the concept of non-alignment propagated by Jawaharlal Nehru in the post-independence era. Kautilyas mandala theory can be labelled as rationalist as it attempted to reveal the behavioural regularities in the activities of the states. Kautilya assumed that every state acted in its own self-interest and tried to maximise its political, economic and military power. Since Kautilyas mandala theory focused on the spheres of inuence, interests and ambitions of eternally warring and ethically apathetic states, it is often evoked as an ancient precursor of contemporary realism. Roger Boesche (2003) opines that Kautilya was a realist in international relations who understood balance of power arguments long before anyone had invented the phrase balance of power. While Benoy Sarkar (1919) considered mandala theory as a portrayal of classical realism, Boesche traced the overlap between the insights of classical realism and neo-realism to suggest that Kautilyas mandala theory embraced the traits of both.2 Though Kautilyas mandala theory seems to be a signicant contribution in the sphere of rationalist theorising, the failure to adapt it in accordance with present political realities is manifest in its absence from any principal IR theory courses taught in todays India. Since Kautilyas mandala theory was based on the behaviour of ancient monarchies, its modication according to the conditions of modern nation states is necessary for enhancing its contemporary relevance. The concept of non-alignment on the other hand emerged as a reaction against the bloc politics of great powers. It was realist as it was designed as a mechanism to attain and retain the sovereignty, territorial integrity, security and national interest of the third world states. As non-alignment cropped up as an alternative theoretical construct that refuted the western intellectual monopoly of balance-of-power discourse, it is frequently hailed as a proof of Indias innovative attempt to generalise about the subject matter of IR (Misra 1981; Rana 1969, 2003). Though the western scholars hardly consider
Economic & Political Weekly EPW

non-alignment as a theory, Appadorai (1981) views it as an original conceptual contribution of Nehru to the vocabulary of IR. Mallavarapu (2009) further argues that non-alignment might not have resulted in broader theoretical formulations, but it certainly raised a number of rst order issues for further theorising. However, the lack of universal applicability of nonalignment (Acharya and Buzan 2007), its unexplained deteriorating inuence in the 1970s as compared to the 1950s (Swarup 1981), and a general setback to the relevance of literature on bloc politics in the post-cold war world raise doubts about its continued signicance. K M Pannikar opines that the hostile tendencies in todays India are trying to systematically dismantle the policy of non-alignment, one of the pillars on which India had built its nationalism. The notion of non-alignment can be revised only if it is redened in accordance with the transforming strategies of the developing countries in the post-cold war world (The Hindu 2008). Though the critiques of the mandala theory and nonalignment create a fragile image of rationalist theory-building in India, the contributions of Indian scholars appear far more impressive in the domain of application of theory. E Sridharan (2011), Rajesh Rajagopalan (2005, 2008), Basrur (2008) have applied the neo-realist theoretical paradigm in the context of the India-Pakistan conict, whereas A P Rana (1979) is more inuenced by the idea of international society emanating from the English School. The scholars rooted in the rationalist school accept the state-centric framework of Realpolitik in varying degrees. Bharat Karnad (2008), Sunil Khilnani (2010), Brahma Chellaney (2010), Uday Bhaskar (2005), Siddharth Varadarajan (2002), Amitabh Mattoo (2009), C Raja Mohan (2009) and K Subrahmanyam (1986) are some of the prominent realists who generate knowledge in the form of manuals of dos and donts for state behaviour with an objective to safeguard, promote and assert Indias national interest essentially dened in terms of power. It has often been argued that given the emphasis on classical high politics, there is a tendency to privilege the realist lens in order to be more policy relevant (Mallavarapu 2009).3 By the reectivist standards, the four clearly identiable branches within Indian critical thinking are: (1) Marxism, (2) Feminism, (3) International Political Economy (IPE), and (4) Ecologism. Neo-Marxists like Achin Vanaik (2007) challenge the very rationality of the concept of national interest and stress the far more dangerous character of state terrorism than group terrorism. Feminists like Nivedita Menon (2001), Urvashi Butalia and Anita Roy (2010) criticise modern states and the international states system which depends in part on the maintenance of unequal gender relations in the division of labour and in power play. Sunanda Sen and Byasdeb Dasgupta (2009) uses the feminist approach to IPE for demonstrating the worldwide adverse impact of structural adjustment programme (SAP) on women. Ecologists like Vandana Shiva (2000), Sunita Narain et al (2001), Ashish Kothari (2004) and Praful Bidwai (2009) move the traditional concept of security beyond the state-centric framework and emphasise the need to give due weightage to the process of
51

february 2, 2013

vol xlviII no 5

SPECIAL ARTICLE

ecological globalisation along with economic globalisation while framing policies. However, the attempts of Indian scholars at meaningful application of Marxism, Feminism, IPE and Ecologism mostly in the south Asian context qualify as sub-systemic, not systemic, theorisation as they essentially apply the already developed western theoretical constructs in the regional context.4 Muni and Muni (1984) expresses an objection over the location of Indian IR theory within the sub-systemic category. Charged with postmodernist sentiment, he asks, who labels theories as systemic or sub-systemic? While Ashis Nandy (1998) declares that the true power of the west lies in its power to dene, Samaddar (2002) describes how western domination over IR theory has resulted in its provincial applicability. He argues that the west-dominated IR theory was bound by the reality and rhetoric of the cold war to such an extent that the world that lay beyond the cold war and the great game of the post-1945 era was ignored; so much so that international concerns actually became very provincial.
Contradictory Viewpoints

is to remain true to its own self-image, it will have to move from being a consumer of knowledge to being a producer of knowledge. In a similar vein, Paul (2009) states:
As Indias material power and position advance in the international system, it will be called upon to make a number of decisions both for its own interest and in the collective interests of the world. Therefore the integration of Indian IR with Global IR is urgently called for.

Mallavarapu (2009) opines that such an integration process would require theoretical formulations that could explain what causal mechanisms account for political change and historical transitions, decide on the cast of actors who mattered, and describe how the broader international community responds to these developments. The recent Indian theorising on multilateralism can be considered as a signicant achievement in this direction.
Mapping the Distinctive Voice in Indian IR

The shaky credentials of Indian IR theory has generated a debate amongst two groups of Indian scholars who subscribe to mutually contradictory viewpoints. The rst group is comparatively more pessimistic in outlook and holds the opinion that IR theory remains a casualty in India primarily because of the absence of familiarity with or interest in theory (Bajpai 2005; Rana and Misra 2005; Behera 2007; Paul 2009). By contrast, the second group entertains an optimistic vision and observes that Indian scholars have enormous potential to engage with IR theory but their theoretical endeavours are either marred with the use of the west as a referential point or not acknowledged as full-edged theory by western scholars (Harshe 2004; Acharya 2008; Mallavarapu 2009). While the academic debate on the state of Indian IR theory remains unsettled, the political preference of the practitioners continues to be located somewhere between realism/neorealism and neo-liberalism. Whether it was the left-of-centre coalition government (Janata Dal-led National Front from 1989 to 1990, Congress-led minority government with the help of left parties from 1991 to 1996, and Janata Dal-led United Front from 1996 to 1998), right-of-centre coalition government (Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance from 1998 to 2004) or the centrist coalition government (Congressled United Progressive Alliance from 2004-09 and re-elected in 2009), the overall strategy of practitioners in India remained constricted by the decisive shift towards neo-liberalism that occurred in 1991 (Bhaduri 2009). The Indian strategists are guided by the overwhelming idea of India emerging as a major power and aspire to carve a space for India which would further enhance its capability to conduct political manoeuvres. The Indian scholars are increasingly viewing this ambitious turn in Indias strategic thinking as a moment of opportunity for uplifting the status of IR theory in India. Pratap Bhanu Mehta (2009) writes: India has a growing footprint on the world. It will be called on to participate in shaping the world order. If it
52

The initial efforts towards theorising multilateralism in the west can be traced to the works of Keohane, Ruggie, Cox and Rosenau. While Keohane (1990) subscribes to the rationalist tradition, and Cox and Rosenau are committed to the reectivist school, Ruggie lies somewhere in between. Keohane (1988, 2000) denes multilateralism as the practice of coordinating national policies in a group of three or more states through institutional arrangements having persistent set of rules that constrain activity, shape expectations and prescribe roles. Keohanes views nd resonance in the writings of Ruggie. According to Ruggie (1993), multilateralism depicts a generic institutional form in international relations that coordinates relations among three or more states on the basis of generalised principles of conduct. Two corollaries of the generalised principles of conduct are: indivisibility among the members of a collectivity with respect to the range of behaviour in question; and diffuse reciprocity expected by each member to yield a rough equivalence of benets in the aggregate and over time. A careful study of Keohane and Ruggie suggests two necessary ingredients of the western rationalist theorising on multilateralism: (1) perpetual regulatory framework and institutional structure; (2) universal state-centric appeal. Though the issues of rules, institutions and state-centrism are reiterated in the Indian rationalist theorising on multilateralism, their perpetuality and universality are effectively problematised. Deepak Nayyar (2002) opines that there is a need not only to change or adapt the existing multilateral rules or institutions, but also to create the missing rules or institutions particularly to govern global macroeconomic management, international nancial structure, transnational corporations, cross-border movement of people and international public goods. He highlights three major problems in this regard: First, there are different rules in different spheres. For instance, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is more open in the sphere of trade ows and capital ows but less open in the sphere of technology ows and labour ows. Second, there are rules for some but not for others. There are no rules for surplus countries, or even decit countries, in the industrialised world which do not borrow from the multilateral nancial institutions, but the
february 2, 2013 vol xlviII no 5
EPW Economic & Political Weekly

SPECIAL ARTICLE

International Monetary Fund and the World Bank set rules for borrowers in the developing world and in the transitional economies. Third, the agenda for new rules is partisan. The attempt to create a multilateral agreement on investment in the WTO, which seeks free access and national treatment for investors with provision to commitments and obligations to foreign investors, provides the most obvious example. Surely these rights of foreign investors must be matched by some obligations. He concludes by advocating the need to make the rules symmetrical across spheres and uniformly applicable to all states. Though Nayyars call for uniformity echoes Ruggies emphasis on generalised principles of conduct, the applicability of Nayyars idea of uniformity is much wider as it is not just limited to multiplicity of states but also embraces plural spheres of interaction amongst states. Moreover, Nayyars demand for introducing new multilateral rules and institutions questions the perpetuality of existing multilateral rules and institutions on the one hand, and reects impatience towards the idea of diffuse reciprocity on the other. A profound mistrust towards the efcacy of diffuse reciprocity in serving collective purposes is reected in the views of Achin Vanaik who writes: Multilateralism is essentially a neutral rather than denitionally positive term as it is so often used for bad ends.5 While J N Dixit (2005) and Shashi Tharoor (2003) largely associate the concept of multilateralism with the regulatory problems of multiple coexisting states as members of universal multilateral institutions like the United Nations (UN), B S Prakash (2005) warns that the changes in multilateralism are not limited to the UN system as sub-regionalism or pan-regionalism has evolved as another multilateral reality that challenges the universal character of traditional multilateralism. Unlike the western scholars, who suggest that regional organisations like the European Union (EU) have multilateralism in their DNA (Barroso 2010; Groom 2009; Zadek 2007), and who sense continuity rather than contradiction between the forces of regionalism and multilateralism, the Indian scholars consider regionalism as an obstacle in the move towards multilateralism. The majority of western scholars Hudgins, Either, Manseld and Reinhardt, Sampson and Woolcock, Wei and Frankel, Menno assert that regionalism is not blocking multilateralism but is facilitating its development, whereas the majority of Indian scholars like Jagdish Bhagwati (1992, 1996), Nipun Agarwal (2007) and Sayantan Gupta (2008) argue that regionalism might not be a building block or a stepping stone but rather a stumbling block in the path of multilateralism.6 They argue that the economic rents produced through multilateral trade diversion adversely affect the politico-economic interests of many regional specialinterest-lobby groups. Consequently, these groups push the governments to stop moving further in the direction of multilateralism. The governments face a multi-objective decision-making scenario wherein they need to maximise cultural, environmental, economic, social and many other factors rather than just one factor the economic factor as stressed by Adam Smith and David Ricardo. The complexity of multi-objective decision-making causes governments to make decisions that are not always compatible with the goal of multilateralism.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW

Noticing the fragmentation in the universal character of multilateralism due to growing regional tilt in multilateral practice, B S Prakash (2010) observes:
As one surveys the changing face of multilateralism today, we see mutation and multiplication. The underlying reality is that the world is multipolar and with more poles, you tend to have more constellations.

He asks how one understands the many-lateralism of multilateralism. Though the Indian scholarship admits some degree of overlap between the divided landscapes of regionalism and multilateralism, it underlines the possibility of clash between regional and universal multilateral interests, thereby challenging the notion of divisibility that is so central to Ruggies understanding of multilateralism.
Linking History and Dialectics

As the theoretical discourse on multilateralism acquires a reectivist attitude, the actors and arenas of multilateralism expand. The criticism of rationalist emphasis on perpetuality and universality paves way for reective thinking on transformation and regionalism. The operation of institutions and rules are analysed in the light of underlying norms. The activities of states are scrutinised in the context of civil society. The western reectivist theorising on multilateralism is arguably best exemplied in the writings of Cox and Rosenau. Coxs (1996) historical dialectic approach studies multilateralism as a historical problem in the making of a new world order. Thus multilateralism becomes an arena of conict between the endeavour to buttress the freedom of movement of powerful homogenising economic forces, and efforts to build a new structure of regulation protecting diversity and the less powerful. Cox (1997) aims at exploring the prospects for creating new multilateralism built from the bottom up on the foundations of a broadly participative global society. In line with Coxs idea of new multilateralism that encompasses a tussle between diverse social forces often transcending the boundaries of state, Rosenau (1997) perceives the formation of multilateralism through a historical dialectic between globalising and localising forces. He argues that both sets of forces challenge the authority of the nation state in favour of some sort of alternative imagined community, whether sub-national, supranational or transnational in scope. For him, the problem of multilateralism is connected to the issue of multiple levels of associations including ethnic, religious and familial afliations. Two features sum up the western reectivist proposition on multilateralism: (1) a historically transformable trajectory; (2) dialectically linked social forces. Though the Indian reectivist thinking on multilateralism captures the transformative thrust of diverse social forces, it has a distinctive appeal in two respects. First, it employs not just historical but also sociological tools for explaining the process of transformation in multilateralism. Second, it suggests that the dialectical interaction between diverse social forces in the process of shaping multilateralism is not always mutually conictive but also mutually constitutive. Sharing Coxs dynamic and historical vision, Ramesh Thakur et al (2009) states that multilateralism, like any social construction, is destined to evolve as a function of changing environmental
53

february 2, 2013

vol xlviII no 5

SPECIAL ARTICLE

dynamics. The multilateral norms that underpin multilateral institutions are products of historically specic demands and power congurations. Since the demands and underlying power congurations evolve and change with the passage of time, there is little reason to believe that multilateral norms or institutions could or should remain static in form and nature (Thakur et al 2009). Acharya (2009) endorses Kratochwils (1993) conviction to further explain that the dynamics of multilateralism is more a function of norms than institutions. Multilateralism institutionalises a world order by embedding new norms into it. However when the existing norms become dysfunctional at a particular temporal juncture, multilateralism redenes or displaces them, thereby transforming the very world order that it once helped to institutionalise. Therefore, the changes in the institutional dimensions of multilateralism can be grasped by comprehending the related normative shifts in time. However, the normative shifts in multilateral practice are not just temporally but also spatially contingent. Acharya (2009) argues that the norms of multilateralism vary and undergo adaptation in different regional contexts, something Ruggies general denition of multilateralism does not demonstrate. Though Ruggies denition acknowledges the normative elements of multilateralism and Coxs account admits the importance of regional contexts, they do not explore how the transnational norms of multilateralism acquire regional specicity and meaning through socialisation. In his attempt to ll the gaps in Ruggies and Coxs understanding of multilateralism, Acharya (2004) uses the sociological framework of norm localisation to explain how external/foreign multilateral norms are constructively diffused into regional/local contexts. He describes norm localisation as the active construction of locally applicable multilateral norms by local actors through discourse, framing, grafting and cultural selection of foreign ideas. The norm localisation helps in achieving congruence between foreign and local beliefs as well as practices, thereby uniquely determining the diverse practices of multilateralism at various regional levels. Though Acharya espouses Coxs and Rosenaus concept of dialectics by admitting that the central feature of norm dynamic is the contestation between pre-existing regional and emerging global normative orders, he delves deeper into the nature of contestation between regional and global forces to reveal that the regional and global normative orders are not in a thoroughly oppositional but in a mutually constitutive relationship. He further elaborates that the resulting behaviour of the recipient can be understood more in terms of the former than the latter, although it can be fully understood in terms of both. Acharyas notion of new multilateralism involves a mix of three types of actors: (1) counter hegemonic coalitions; (2) cosmopolitan moral movements; (3) knowledge-based epistemic communities. Though Acharya (2009) borrows the concept of counterhegemonic coalitions from Cox and epistemic communities from Adler and Haas, the manner in which he utilises these concepts for explaining the role of leadership in new multilateralism makes his contribution more than a mere application of existing western ideas to non-western contexts. Unlike the
54

western practice of acknowledging the hegemonic leadership of United States (US) in creating post-war multilateral order, Acharya argues that the actors of new multilateralism provide a leadership that goes beyond the structural leadership of the global hegemon. He demonstrates that some of the most creative contributions of new multilateralism such as the report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty are neither American-led nor produced by a formal governmental organisation. The sociological bent of Acharyas reading of multilateralism opens greater space for entrepreneurial leadership. The greater preference for regional, dynamic, and normative aspects in the Indian theorising on multilateralism originates from Indias experience of multilateralism.
Lessons for the West

Indias tryst with multilateralism can be traced back to the sending of a subordinate Indian delegation (within the British delegation) to the United Nations Conference on International Organisation which drafted the UN charter in 1945 (Mani 2004). Since then a rm commitment to the principles and purposes of the UN charter has remained integral to Indias approach to multilateralism (Dixit 2005). After obtaining freedom from colonial shackles, the practice of multilateralism under the ambit of the UN was viewed by India as potentially instrumental in safeguarding its hard-won sovereignty and uplifting its underdeveloped economy. Though Indias faith in the UN system remained intact, it gradually realised that the actual structuring of the UN system was predicated on the premise of preserving the core interests of both the great powers the US and the Soviet Union (Prakash 2005). In the light of this renewed understanding, Indias modied approach to multilateralism found expression in the initiation of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). The period of multilateral practice by India within the parameters of the UN and NAM peculiarly informed the Indian theorising on multilateralism. The concept of multilateralism was mostly viewed through the institutional and regulatory lenses. The complexity of consensus-building amongst sovereign states within the multilateral forums of the UN and NAM appeared prominently in the writings of Indian theorists. However the pursuance of protective multilateralism under the aegis of the NAM could not continue for long. Due to the collapse of the second world and the end of bipolarity, the signicance of the third world and its NAM became questionable. The emergence of a politically unipolar and economically multipolar world pushed India to revise its approach to multilateralism. The revised approach had to adapt itself to three new realities. First, the UN system as a multilateral forum had been transformed both in terms of the strength and character of its members and the scope of its numerous specialised agencies. Second, the UN system was not the only instrument of multilateralism. The cropping up of multiple regional organisations (the EU, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation SAARC, Association of Southeast Asian Nations ASEAN, Shanghai Cooperation Organisation SCO, Asia-Pacic Economic Cooperation, G-4, G-6, G-8+5, G-20, G-77, Brazil, South
february 2, 2013 vol xlviII no 5
EPW Economic & Political Weekly

SPECIAL ARTICLE

Africa, India and China (BASIC), Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) provided alternative venues for operationalising multilateralism. Third, the exercise of an excessively unilateralist role by the hegemon (the US) began to give a setback to the general spirit of multilateralism. Shridath Ramphal (1988) wrote:
The paradox and the tragedy of recent times is that even as the need for a multilateral approach to global problems has become more manifest, support for internationalism has weakened-eroded by some of the strongest nations. This is most true, of course, of the United States, whose recent behaviour has served actually to weaken the structure of multilateralism, including the UN itself.

institutions, and legitimacy at the global level is found missing at the regional level. Amitav Acharya (2002) writes:
Asias somewhat distinctive multilateralism is based on organisational minimalism, preference for consensus over majority voting, and avoidance of legalistic approaches in favour of informal and processbased socialisation.

How did Indias new multilateralism respond to these changed realities? First, India attempted to capitalise on the growing numerical strength of the developing countries in the UN and related agencies with a view to forward its own national interest. The stalemate at the WTO Doha Round over the controversial issue of agricultural market access was largely a contribution of the concerted effort of India and Brazil led group of developing countries (Srinivasan 2006). Second, India began to explore the alternative venues of multilateralism offered by regional organisations either by acquiring membership (SAARC, G-4, G-8+5, G-20, G-77, BASIC, BRICS) or by forging close economic and strategic links (EU, ASEAN). In doing so, India broke out of the claustrophobic connes of south Asia (Gupta 1997) and designed its foreign policy in accordance with the concept of extended neighbourhood (Scott 2009). In 2007, Indias Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon stated that as we move beyond Southern Asia to Indias extended neighbourhood... from the broader perspective, we regard our security as lying in a neighbourhood of widening concentric circles. Third, India chose to bandwagon with the US with an intention of reaping the benets of accompanying the hegemon while simultaneously attempting to dilute its unilateralist character and shift it in the direction of collective hegemony wherein India aspired to join the other major powers in the collective exercise of hegemony. Besides the Indo-US Nuclear Deal, India accepted with the US what is in effect an Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA) and a Container Security Initiative (CSI), widely seen as Indias move to appease the US. C Raja Mohan (2009) opines that
Indias reluctance to join the rest of the world in the chorus against US unilateralism is a reection not only of diplomatic opportunism, but of the somewhat poorly understood complexity of the Indian attitude to both multilateralism and national sovereignty.

At the regional level, Indias new multilateralism is assertive in character. Manjeet Pardesi (2005) argues that a rising India will aspire to become the regional hegemon of south Asia and the Indian Ocean, and an extra-regional power in west Asia, central Asia and south-east Asia. The dubious character of the new multilateral practice reshaped the Indian scholarship on multilateralism. As the wave of globalisation increasingly modied the traditional understanding of state sovereignty, the notion of regionalism became crucial for grasping the dynamics of multilateralism. In their response to greater regional sensitivity in practising multilateralism, the Indian theorists identied the possibility of a clash between global and regional multilateral forces, and claried the historical transformation of multilateral norms by explaining the sociological interplay between the state and non-state actors operating at both global and regional levels. Against the differential practice of multilateralism at the global and regional levels, the rise of the EU as a successful multilateral model is increasingly being assessed by both the strategists and scholars of India. In her inaugural speech at the conference on India-EU Forum on Effective Multilateralism (October 2009, http://www.indembassy.be/speeches-statements/october/oct9a.html), the minister of state for external affairs, Perneet Kaur stated:
India and the EU seek to address a number of global issues and challenges through multilateralism Effective multilateralism requires understanding and respect for mutual concerns, needs or aspirations.

Though the practitioners in India intend to forge effective multilateral ties with the west, the compatibility of the respective multilateral frameworks of south Asia and Europe is generally considered very low by the Indian scholars (K K Bhargava et al 1994, 1998; L L Mehrotra and H S Chopra 1995; Rajendra K Jain 2002, 2007) due to three broad hurdles: (1) The suspicious political environment because of the fragile democratic conditions and Indias dominant position in south Asia. (2) The conictive relationship between India and Pakistan. (3) The lack of complementarities amongst the economies of south Asia and their increasing reliance on the developed economies of the west.
Regional Multilateralism

He explains that Indias enthusiasm for third worldism never obscured its own ambitions to become a major power in its own right or its unwillingness to limit its sovereignty under the presumed advantages of multilateralism. These insights suggest that the Indian approach to multilateralism is dubious when diagnosed separately at the global and the regional level. At the global level, Indias new multilateralism is reformative in character. The issues of rules, institutions and legitimacy appear very prominently in the reformative agenda. However, the high degree of importance attached to rules,
Economic & Political Weekly EPW

The highly unstable political scenario with the extremely volatile Afghanistan-Pakistan region has become an obstacle in the establishment of the security community advocated by Karl W Deutsch et al (1957), within which groups of people enjoy institutions and practices of a kind that allows for a reasonable expectation that change would proceed by peaceful rather than violent means. Writing in the context of the EU, Jackson (1999) drew upon Keohanes bargaining away of sovereignty thesis and argued that the membership of regional
55

february 2, 2013

vol xlviII no 5

SPECIAL ARTICLE

organisations is nothing but an exercise in voluntary loss of sovereignty. However, in the Indian context, such a voluntary loss of sovereignty is not readily acceptable because given the dominant economic position of India in the south Asian region, the probability of political loss being compensated by economic gains remains bleak at least in the short run. Thus the spillover effect of neo-functionalism,7 which is the basis of the EU model, becomes inapplicable in the context of SAARC. Instead of spillover one can notice signs of spillback as the strategy of leadership in south Asia has so far failed in translating the economic benets into political gains. On the contrary, the deep-rooted political differences have blocked the prospects for economic growth. Despite the obvious incompatibility between the multilateral frameworks of the EU and SAARC, Indias admiration for the EU model has compelled it to forge a robust one-to-one relation with the EU, which in turn is likely to have a profound impact on global governance, particularly in the post-recession world. Against the backdrop of the recent recession, which has already posed a question mark on the unilateralist tendencies of American hegemony and boosted the condence of the emerging developing economies, India nds itself closer to its yet to be realised objective of exercising collective hegemony. In this multilateral project of exercising collective hegemony India views the EU as an inuential co-player. While India intends to forge effective multilateral ties with the EU, the Global Europe Strategy (2006) has identied India as a priority partner. The European commissioner for education, training, culture and youth affairs, Jan Figel, during his visit to India in 2008, commented: In the context of the IndiaEU strategic partnership, a reinforced dialogue with an exchange on policy issues will be mutually benecial (Nicholson 2009). A similar sentiment was expressed by the president of the European Commission, Jose Manual Barroso, who stated: The world needs new thinking and new resolve to tackle the many challenges it faces and I believe Europe and India have a lot to offer each other as well as the world (ibid). In the light of the awareness that Europe is facing some difcult challenges, a serious thought has been devoted for improving the effectiveness of its multilateral policies. The European Security Strategy (ESS) formulated in 2003 as well as the report on the implementation of ESS submitted in 2008 revolves around the key concept of effective multilateralism. Though the concept of effectiveness multilateralism has become centrally important
Notes
1 The rationalist theories focus on behavioural regularities in specic institutions over time and space. They assume scarcity, competition and rationality on the part of the actors. The reectivist theories underline the importance of inter-subjective meanings derived from values, norms and practices that vary across culture. For a detailed discussion on this, see Keohane (1988: 379-96). 2 Besides Indian scholars, many western thinkers like Max Weber (1918), George Modelski (1964) and Boeshche (2003) too view Kautilya as the pioneer of political realism. 3 While Mattoo locates the crisis in IR theory

for the EU, it has been neither clearly dened in theoretical terms nor appropriately understood in practical sense (Giovanni and Caffarena 2010). The insights provided by the Indian theory and practice of multilateralism can enrich the western understanding in this regard. The Indian understanding of multilateralism as a more dynamic, normative and regional phenomena can probably help the western theorists in developing a clearer denition of effective multilateralism, thereby allowing the Indian scholarship to make meaningful contribution in building IR theory. The Indian theorising on multilateralism demonstrates the capability of Indian theorists to fashion a post-western IR theory. However, the potential of the Indian post-western theorising on multilateralism can be most usefully tapped only if it gains serious acknowledgement from the western academia.
Conclusions

The Indian scholarship on IR has arrived at a promising juncture with the growing importance of multilateralism in the asymmetrically interdependent contemporary world. As multilateralism acquires varied faces in diverse regional contexts, its appropriate theoretical comprehension and effective practical implementation become far more challenging. The insights provided by the recent Indian theorising on multilateralism as well as the lessons derived from Indias historical experience of multilateralism become particularly meaningful in this context. The greater sensitivity towards the temporal and spatial dimensions of multilateral practice in the works of Indian scholars, establishes multilateralism as a more regional, normative and dynamic concept. The creative employment of sociological conceptual tools like norm localisation by the Indian theorists aids in a better understanding of the complex interface between the regional and global dynamics of multilateralism over time. As the west increasingly realises that a new set of widely shared rules is necessary to foster a cohesive multilateral framework for sustaining global governance, and as it strives to play a leading role in accomplishing this goal, the need to grasp the attitude and preferences of rising powers becomes critically essential. The rise of India as an emerging power in the post-recession world grants it a signicant position in theoretically dening as well as strategically designing the evolving form of multilateralism, thereby indicating the uplifting status of IR theorising in India.
view regionalism as a stumbling block, the Indian scholars like Manoj Pant and Amit Sadhukaran as well as Indian practitioners like Kamal Nath argue that regionalism is not a hurdle to multilateralism as often feared by the Indians. Besides, there are scholars who take a neutral position on the issue of regionalism versus multilateralism. For instance, Andriamananjara (2003) and Aghion et al (2004) hold that regionalism, as reected in the practice of RTAs, support multilateralism, though multilateralism could have eventuated even if regionalism did not happen. See Manoj Pant and Amit Sadhukaran Does Regionalism Hinder Multilateralism: A Case Study of India,
vol xlviII no 5
EPW Economic & Political Weekly

within the larger crises affecting Indian higher education, Mallavarapu asserts that there exists an Indian tradition of thinking on issues of order, justice and cosmopolitanism, even though it may not have been expressed in the language of IR theory. 4 Acharya and Buzan label those intellectual works as sub-systemic or exceptionalist theorising that are situated within the western systems of thought and seek to creatively apply them in specic local contexts. 5 In an email conversation with the author. 6 There are a few exceptions in both the western and Indian line of thinking. While the western thinkers like Winters (1996) and Ornelas (2005)
february 2, 2013

56

SPECIAL ARTICLE
2008, Discussion Paper 09-03 , Centre for International Trade and Development, SIS, JNU; Kamal Nath No Contradiction between RTAs and Multilateralism, 2006, available at http:// commerce.nic.in/PressRelease/pressrelease_ detail.asp?id=368 7 Neofunctionalism is a theory of regional integration building on the work of Ernest B. Haas and Jean Monnets approach to European integration. It aims at integrating individual sectors in hopes of achieving spillover effects to further the process of integration. Unlike previous theories of integration, neofunctionalism is non-normative and tries to describe and explain the process of regional integration based on empirical data. Neofunctionalism holds that functional spillover occurs from the cooperation and social-integration of technocrats into increasingly political realms. Its strength however is also its weakness. While it understands that regional integration is only feasible as an incremental process, its conception of integration as a linear process makes the explanation of setbacks impossible. Behera, Navnita Chadha (2007): Re-Imagining IR in India, International Relations of the Asia Pacic, 7(3), pp 341-68. Bhaduri, Amit (2009): A Failed World View, EPW, pp 35-39. Bhagwati, Jagdish (1992): Regionalism versus Multilateralism, The World Economy, 15(15), pp 535-56. (1996): Preferential Trading Areas and Multilateralism: Strategies, Friends or Foes? in Jagdish Bhagwati (ed.), The Economics of Preferential Trade Agreements, AEI Press. Bhargava, K K and Husain and Ross Masood (1994): SAARC and European Union: Learning and Cooperation Opportunities, Har-Anand Publications. (1998): EU-SAARC Comparisons and Prospects of Cooperation, Discussion Paper C15, Centre for European Integration Studies, Bonn. Bhaskar, C Uday et al, ed. (2005): United Nations: Multilateralism and International Security, IDSA-Shipra. Bidwai, Praful (2009): An India That Can Say Yes: A Climate Responsible Development Agenda for Copenhagen and Beyond, Heinrich Boll Stiftung, New Delhi. Boesche, Roger (2003): Kautilyas Arthashastra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India, The Journal of Military History, 67(1), pp 9-37. Butalia, Urvashi and Anita Roy (2010): Women Changing India, Zubaan. Cox, Robert W (1996): Multilateralism and World Order in Robert W Cox and Timothy Sinclair (ed.), Approaches to World Order, Cambridge, pp 494-523. ed. (1997): The New Realism: Perspectives on Multilateralism and World Order, St Martins Press/United Nations University Press. Chellaney, Brahma (2010): Asian Juggernaut: The Rise of China, India and Japan, Harper Paperbacks. Deutsch, Karl W et al (1957): Political Economy in the North Atlantic Area: International Organisation in the Light of Historical Experience, Princeton. Dixit, J N (2005): Indias Approach to Multilateralism in C Uday Bhaskar et al (ed.), United Nations: Multilateralism and International Security, IDSA-Shipra. Giovanni, Andornino and Anna Caffarena (2010): Engineering a Global Framework for Europes Strategic Policy-Making, a paper presented at Network Seminar on Europe and Global Challenges, held at Torino World Affairs Institute, 23-25 March. Groom, A J R (2009): Multilateralism as a Way of Life in Europe in Edward Newman, Ramesh Thakur and John Tirman (ed.), Multilateralism under Challenge? Power, International Order and Structural Change, United Nations University Press. Gupta, Bhabani Sen (1997): India in the Twenty First Century, International Affairs, 73(2), pp 297-314. Gupta, Sayantan (2008): Changing Faces of International Trade: Multilateralism to Regionalism, Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology, 3(4), pp 266-85. Harshe, Rajen (2004): Interpreting Globalisation: Perspectives in International Relations, Rawat Publications. Jackson, Robert (1999): Sovereignty at the Millennium, Wiley-Blackwell. Jain, Rajendra Kumar (2002): India and the European Union in the 21st Century, Radiant Publishers. (2007): The European Union in Transition: Economy, Politics, Society, Radiant Publishers.
vol xlviII no 5

References
Acharya, Amitav (2002): Regional Institutions and Asian Security Order in Muthaah Alagappa (ed.), Asian Security Order, Stanford University Press, pp 201-40. (2004): How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localisation and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism, International Organisation, 58(2), pp 239-75. (2008): Identity without Exceptionalism: Challenges for Asian Political and International Studies in Navnita Chadha Behera (ed.), International Relations in South Asia: Search for an Alternative Paradigm, Sage. (2009): Multilateralism, Sovereignty and Normative Change in World Politics in Ramesh Thakur et al (ed.), Multilateralism under Challenge?, United Nations University Press, pp 95-118. Acharya, Amitav and Barry Buzan (2007): Why Is There No Non-Western International Relations Theory?, International Relations of the AsiaPacic, 7(3), pp 287-312. Agarwal, Nipun (2007): Why Multilateralism Cant Exist: Is The WTO Mandate Wrong?, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract_id=957765, accessed 28 July 2010. Aghion, P, P Antrs and E Helpman (2004): Negotiating Free Trade, NBER Working Paper 10721. Andriamananjara, Soamiely (2003): On the Relationship between Preferential Trading Agreements and the Multilateral Trading System, Pacic Economic Cooperation Council, available at http://www.pecc.org/publications/papers/ trade-papers/1_SII/6-andriamananjara.PDF Appadorai, A (1981): Non-Alignment: Some Important Issues, International Studies, 20 (1&2), pp 3-11. Bajpai, Kanti (2005): International Studies in India: Bringing Theory (Back) Home in Bajpai and Mallavarapu (ed.), International Relations in India: Bringing Theory Back Home, Orient Longman, pp 17-38. Barroso, Jose Manuel (2010): Asian Giants Can Imbibe Europes Values, The Times of India, 24 January, p 14, available at http://epaper. timesondia.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style= OliveXLib:LowLevelEntityToPrint_TOI&Type= text/html&Locale=english-skin-custom&Path =TOIBG/2010/01/24&ID=Ar01400, accessed 28 July 2010. Basrur, Rajesh M (2008): South Asias Cold War: Nuclear Weapons and Conict in Comparative Perspective, Routledge.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW

Karnad, Bharat (2008): Indias Nuclear Policy, ABC-CLIO. Keohane, Robert O (1988): International Institutions: Two Approaches, International Studies Quarterly, 32(4), pp 379-96. (1990): Multilateralism: An Agenda for Research, International Journal, 45(4), pp 731-64. (2000): The Contingent Legitimacy of Multilateralism, GARNET Working Paper, No 9. Khilnani, Sunil (2010): The Idea of India, Penguin. Kothari, Ashish (2004): Building Bridges for Conservation: Towards Joint Management of Protected Areas in India, Natraj Publishers. Kratochwil, Friedrich (1993): Norms versus Numbers: Multilateralism and the Rationalist and Reexivist Approaches to Institutions in John Gerard Ruggie (ed.), op cit, pp 443-74. Mallavarapu, Siddharth (2009): Development of International Relations Theory in India: Traditions, Contemporary Perspectives and Trajectories, International Studies, 46(1&2), pp 165-83. Mani, V S (2004): An Indian Perspective on the Evolution of International Law in B S Chimni, Masahiro Miyoshi and Surya Subedi (ed.), Asian Yearbook of International Law, Volume 9, 2000, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Mattoo, Amitabh (2009): The State of International Studies in India, International Studies, 46 (1&2), pp 37-48. Mehrotra, L L, H S Chopra and Gert W Kueck, ed. (1995): SAARC 2000 and Beyond, Omega Scientic. Mehta, Pratap Bhanu (2009): Foreword in Muthiah Alagappa, Report of the Workshop on International Studies in India, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. Menon, Nivedita (2001): Gender and Politics in India, Oxford. Misra, K P (1981): Toward Understanding NonAlignment, International Studies, 20(1 &2), pp 36-37. Mitra, Subrat (2003): The Reluctant Hegemon: Indias Self-perception and the South Asian Strategic Environment, Contemporary South Asia, 12(3), pp 399-418. Modelski, George (1964): Kautilya: Foreign Policy and International System in Ancient Hindu World, The American Political Science Review, 58(3), September, pp 549-60. Muni, S D and Anuradha Muni (1984): Regional Cooperation in South Asia, National Publishing House. Nandy, Ashis (1998): The Savage Freud and Other Essays on Possible and Retrievable Selves, Oxford University Press. Narain, Sunita et al (2001): Making Water Everybodys Business: Policy and Practice of Water Harvesting, Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi. Nayyar, Deepak, ed. (2002): Governing Globalization, Oxford. Nicholson, Petronella, ed. (2009): The European Union and India: A Dynamic Strategic Partnership, Stroudgate. Ornelas, E (2005): Trade Creating Free Trade Areas and the Undermining of Multilateralism, European Economic Review, Vo 49, No 7, pp 1717-35. Pardesi, Manjeet (2005): Deducing Indias Grand Strategy of Regional Hegemony from Historical and Conceptual Perspectives, RSIS Working Papers, 76, April. Paul, T V (2009): Integrating International Relations Studies in India to Global Scholarship, International Studies, 46(1&2), pp 129-45. Prakash, B S (2005): Strengthening and Restructuring Multilateral Institutions: A Perspective

february 2, 2013

57

SPECIAL ARTICLE
in C Uday Bhaskar et al (ed.), United Nations: Multilateralism and International Security, IDSA-Shipra. (2010): Looking for Meaning in Multilater alism, available at http://newsrediff.com/column/ 2010/feb/23/looking-for-meaning-in-multilateralism.htm, accessed 25 June 2010. Raja Mohan, C (2009): India and the Asian Security Order in Michael J Green and Bates Gill (ed.), Asias New Multilateralism: Cooperation, Competition and the Search for Community, Columbia University Press. Rajagopalan, Rajesh (2005): Second Strike Arguments about Nuclear War in South Asia, Viking. (2008): Fighting like a Guerrilla: The Indian Army and Counterinsurgency, Routledge. Ramphal, Shridath (1988): Preface to Harrod and Sahrijver (ed.), UN Under Attack, Gower. Rana, A P (1969): The Intellectual Dimensions of Indias Nonalignment, Journal of Asian Studies, 28(2), pp 299-312. (1979): Regionalism as an Approach to International Order: A Conceptual Overview, International Studies, 18, October, pp 491-535. (2003): The Nehruvian Tradition in World Affairs: Its Evolution and Relevance to Post Cold War International Relations in Surjit Mansingh (ed.), Nehrus Foreign Policy, Mosaic, pp 40-68. Rana, A P and K P Misra (2005): Communicative Discourse and Community in International Relations in India: A Critique in Bajpai and Mallavarapu (ed.), International Relations in India: Bringing Theory Back Home, Orient Longman. Rosenau, James N (1997): The Person, the Household, the Community and the Globe: Notes for a Theory of Multilateralism in a Turbulent World in Robert W Cox (ed.), op cit. Ruggie, John Gerard (1993): Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution in John Gerard Ruggie (ed.), Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Praxis of an Institutional Form, Columbia University Press. Samaddar, Ranabir (2002): State in the Revision of Space and History Today in Samaddar (ed.), Space, Territory and the State: New Readings in International Politics, Orient Longman, pp 166-84. Sarkar, Benoy Kumar (1919): The Hindu Theory of International Relations, The American Political Science Review, 13(3), pp 400-14. (1921): The Hindu Theory of the State, Political Science Quarterly, 36(1), pp 79-90. Shiva, Vandana (2000): Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply, Zed Books. Scott, David (2009): Indias Extended Neighbourhood Concept: Power Projection for a Rising Power, India Review, 8(2), April-June, pp 107-43. Sen, Sunanda and Byasdeb Dasgupta (2009): Unfreedom and Waged Work: Labour in Indias Manufacturing Industry, Sage. Sridharan, E, ed. (2011): International Relations Theory and South Asia: Security, Political Economy, Domestic Politics, Identities and Images, Vol I, Oxford University Press. Srinivasan, G (2006): Multilateralism at Crossroads, Business Line, 19 December. Subrahmanyam, K (1986): India and the Nuclear Age, Lancer International in association with Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. Swarup, Shanti (1981): Non-Alignment Mobilisation and Capability, International Studies, 20(1&2). Thakur, Ramesh, et al, ed. (2009): Multilateralism under Challenge? Power, International Order and Structural Change, United Nations University Press. Tharoor, Shashi (2003): Why America Still Needs the United Nations?, Foreign Affairs, September/ October, available at http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59184/shashi-tharoor/whyamerica-still-needs-the-united-nations, accessed 4 April 2010. The Hindu (2008): Nationalism in Danger: Pannikkar, The Hindu, 1 December, available at http://www.hindu.com/2008/12/21/stories/ 2008122152980400.htm, accessed 24 July 2011. Vanaik, Achin (2007): Selling US Wars, Oliver Branch Press. Varadarajan, Siddharth (2002): Gujarat: The Making of a Tragedy, Penguin. Weber, Max (1918): Politics as a Vocation in H H Gerth and C Wright Mills (ed. and trans.), 1958 From Max Weber, OUP. Winters, L Alan (1996): Regionalism versus Multilateralism, Policy Research Working Paper 1687, World Bank, Washington DC. Zadek, Simon (2007): Collaborative Governance: The New Multilateralism for the 21st Century, available at http://www.zadek.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Collaborative-Governance-Brookings-October-2007.pdf, accessed 4 April 2010.

EW

Decentralisation and Local Governments


Edited by

T R Raghunandan
The idea of devolving power to local governments was part of the larger political debate during the Indian national movement. With strong advocates for it, like Gandhi, it resulted in constitutional changes and policy decisions in the decades following Independence, to make governance more accountable to and accessible for the common man. The introduction discusses the milestones in the evolution of local governments post-Independence, while providing an overview of the panchayat system, its evolution and its powers under the British, and the stand of various leaders of the Indian national movement on decentralisation. This volume discusses the constitutional amendments that gave autonomy to institutions of local governance, both rural and urban, along with the various facets of establishing and strengthening these local self-governments.

Authors:
V M Sirsikar Nirmal Mukarji C H Hanumantha Rao B K Chandrashekar Norma Alvares Poornima Vyasulu, Vinod Vyasulu Niraja Gopal Jayal Mani Shankar Aiyar Benjamin Powis Amitabh Behar, Yamini Aiyar Pranab Bardhan, Dilip Mookherjee Amitabh Behar Ahalya S Bhat, Suman Kolhar, Aarathi Chellappa, H Anand Raghabendra Chattopadhyay, Esther Duflo Nirmala Buch Ramesh Ramanathan M A Oommen Indira Rajaraman, Darshy Sinha Stphanie Tawa Lama-Rewal M Govinda Rao, U A Vasanth Rao Mary E John Pratap Ranjan Jena, Manish Gupta Pranab Bardhan, Sandip Mitra, Dilip Mookherjee, Abhirup Sarkar M A Oommen J Devika, Binitha V Thampi

Pp xii + 432 ISBN 978-81-250-4883-1 2012 Rs 695

Orient Blackswan Pvt Ltd


www.orientblackswan.com MumbaiChennaiNew DelhiKolkataBangaloreBhubaneshwarErnakulamGuwahatiJaipurLucknowPatnaChandigarhHyderabad Contact: info@orientblackswan.com
58
february 2, 2013 vol xlviII no 5 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

You might also like