US Presidents George W Bush and Bill Clinton were key to India’s quest for great power status, while Prime Ministers Jawaharlal Nehru, Manmohan Singh and Narendra Modi have been the most effective Indian leaders to have pushed for India’s place in the world, T V Paul, distinguished James McGill Professor in the Department of Political Science at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, said in an interview with The Indian Express. He is in India to promote his latest book, ‘The Unfinished Quest: India’s Search for Major Power Status from Nehru to Modi’ (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2024). Edited excerpts: What’s the central argument of your latest book? There is a resurgence of interest on India’s rise, yet there is an absence of discourse in India on the consequences of a rise of a new power. The book looks at India’s strengths and weaknesses as a rising power. It explores what it means to be a great power, or leading power, in the 21st century. What are your suggestions for attaining great power status? Improve your domestic conditions rapidly, as other rising powers did in previous historical eras. There is a strategic opportunity here for India. Others increasingly recognize your core strengths in both hard and soft power. Of course, having a strong military as well as robust economic strength will matter, but I think the economic dimension matters more today. In the military area, India’s naval capacity has to broaden beyond the Indian Ocean even though that may cause challenges from China. India needs to diversify its coalition with the Quad members in the economic arena in particular to offer something different from BRI. Why has the quest remained unfinished? India missed two significant, pivotal turning points since the post-war international order was set up in 1945 in San Francisco. It was not included as a UN Security Council member, similar to China, although India contributed some 2.5 million soldiers, and so it missed that last major global institution building opportunity. And then secondly, India missed the 1968 Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty cutoff date of 1967 as it had not tested a bomb to be included as a nuclear weapon state and it became categorized as a non nuclear weapon state with lesser privileges. Despite this, today it is recognised as a rising power and the credit goes quite a bit to Manmohan Singh, who has many achievements in the diplomatic realm. The unfinished quest is largely about a legitimate status position for India with institutional recognition. Partial accommodation has happened through membership in forums like the G20, but there are several others in it, making it less exclusionary. The main contention is if you have an economy that is inclusive, a political system that is developmental as well as inclusive, you become an attractive pole by itself, and then others have to recognize you. What has been the attitude of P5 countries (permanent members of the Security Council) towards India’s quest for status? Of the five, four have recognised that India should be on the Security Council and should have the responsibility as a leading power. In particular, the US has been supportive, starting with President Bill Clinton all the way to Joe Biden. Russia continues to support for its own strategic as well as historical reasons. Britain and France seem to be supportive as well. But China has strong reasons not to recognise a peer-competitor in global institutions like the Security Council. China has also been needling India on the border, partly because it distracts India’s attention from building a strong navy and discourages India from converting Quad into a military alliance. From Nehru to Modi, who have been most effective in pushing for India’s quest? Jawaharlal Nehru, of course played a pioneering role with an ambitious strategy based on soft power, especially in the international arena along with the newly decolonized states and playing a positive mediator role at the UN. And, then Manmohan Singh had played a major role with the signing of the Indo-US nuclear accord. PM Modi has articulated India’s ambitions in a more effective manner with his slogans and ideas. I think Indira Gandhi tried, but there were a lot of constraints on her from established powers. Among the US Presidents, who has been the most accommodative of India’s quest for power? President George W Bush comes first. In fact, if there was no 9/11, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President Bush had a plan to bring India to the strategic forefront in the context of China’s rise, which was not quite explicit at that time. Americans realised that India needed status recognition. Bush realized that rapprochement will not happen if the nuclear sanctions persisted, that India needed to be lifted out of that category of states such as Iran and Pakistan. But I would also give a role to Bill Clinton, as he came to India after the Kargil war and de-hyphenated it from Pakistan. As an academic in Canada, how do you see the alleged assassination plots that target pro-Khalistan separatists impact India’s quest for great power status? In Canada, some 56% had a favourable opinion of India before these revelations. Now, it is down to 22%. Extrajudicial killing, especially in Western countries, will hurt India’s image and status. Some Canadian analysts have been arguing that India is in the category of Iran and Russia when it comes to security threats to Canada. Such perceptions are not good for status enhancement in the West. This relationship is plagued by many misperceptions, and it requires major engagement, like the strategic dialogue between the US and India, by Strobe Talbott and Jaswant Singh after the 1998 nuclear tests. There is a kind of mutual status denigration from both sides and the Canadians are overplaying the cards quite a bit for domestic political reasons.
