Place in the G-20 sun

Multilateralism is the way for India to define its destiny, to meet the challenge of pursuing concentric circles of influence

The nuclear debate left India a winner; but the sad part was the erosion of the bipartisan aspect of its foreign policy. That had always given it grandeur, something now absent. This column had always asked critics to take a larger view of history; but that was obviously not convincing enough, although it is strange for Marxists to be critical of the technological frontiers of the greater good. We are now faced with another debate on that sort of grand scale, the G-20 debate; but the fear is that India is shrinking inwards and letting bureaucrats and not the larger polity call the shots.

In 2003, the Canadians took the first initiatives to put India and China on the high table, with ideas that were not incremental.nbsp;Gordon Smith, who had served in high diplomatic and think-tank positions, was 8220;sherpa8221; to their PM 8212; the civil servant chosen to advise the head of government in intimate sessions. He set the agenda, which led to India making it there. In 2002, at the height of globalisation prosperity he was to prophetically argue that we all suffer from the presumption that the status quo will not change. Despite our shared history of business cycles, he said, it is hard to imagine the disappearance of multinational corporations and the decline of formerly important economic sectors. His piece appeared in a volume from the Canadian think-thank Centre for International Governance Innovation 8212; founded by the Blackberry chief, Jim Basilie, which shows that some in MNCs have that sort of vision. Smith argued persuasively that the Doha Round was as dead as a dodo, climate change was on us and the world8217;s financial institutions were in a stupor. Invited to write an Indian perspective, I irrelevantly titled it, 8220;Sherpas and Coolies8221;. Sherpas help summiteers in carrying essential baggage and are an important part of 8220;shaping8221; the final assault. But the final 8220;paths8221; emerge, I argued, block by block from the activities of 8220;coolies8221;, in base and higher camps. They are, as they were, the 8220;hewers of wood and drawers of water8221;.

There are no Brahmanical ways of changing the world, either in mythical Malgudi or in real Boston. At the highest level, the political leaders have to shape the future, the sherpas are important to feed them and in turn to inform the others of the shape of things to come, but the coolies have to discover and anticipate the 8220;building blocks8221;, which shape the problematique in a practical sense. And they8217;ve already spoken: the task for Montek in the next meeting is clear. India must argue for its interests 8212; championing change in the world.nbsp;

This time, the Canadian political scientist,nbsp;John Kirton, has already assembled the world8217;s thinking elite to serve as coolies. Brazil8217;s President Lula introduces the problems; former Canadian PM Paul Martin, former US Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, former Italian PM Giuliano Amato and political scientist Andy Cooper set the stage; Joseacute; Aacute;ngel Gurria, the secretary of the OECD discusses the global crisis and there are state-of-the-art arguments on climate change, biofuels 8212; and Stiglitz on financial inclusion.

What emerges from the larger debates is that there are no neat formulas left. Many neat ones fell by the wayside as nations manoeuvred their own interests through different structural organisations: the UN, UNSC, OECD, the G-8, the Outreach 5 and the G-20.nbsp;

Some want incrementalism on crisis-response; others prefer a 8220;big bang8221;, creating new structures. But apart from that, the serious issues are climate change and energy 8212; not to mention the WTO and agriculture, and questions of financing and strategies.

For India, the decade before the setting up of the G-20 saw major changes in India8217;s perception of its role. It starts growing fast and defines in a more concrete sense its interest as a growing power and as a part of the constituency of growth of the erstwhile colonies. Many of its received institutions go through inevitable changes triggering faster growth; some emerge from the requirements of fast change. These experiences condition its responses in global fora. I argue that multilateralism is the way for India to define its destiny, to meet the challenge of pursuing concentric circles of influence 8212; the challenge born of the redefinition of its foreign policy in the late 8217;80s. This defines its position in the WTO, where she won the intellectual debate; and in showing that gradualism will not work on energy, water, the Millennium Development Goals, promoting democratic governance, creating financial collateral for poverty reduction, and energising institutions to back up local initiatives. Later this month we need to show that our place in the sun has arrived.nbsp;

Story continues below this ad

The writer, a former Union minister, is chairman, Institute of Rural Management, Anand

expressexpressindia.com