Fp 2.docx

Justin Mathew 28/2/2019 Worksheet 2: The post-war global capitalism and India’s Foreign Policy: “The foreign policy of a country is deeply influenced by the domestic correlations of social forces and their material goals” (C. P. Bhambri, “India’s Foreign Policy”, Social Scientist, Vol. 10, No. 10 (Oct., 1982), p. 51—A country’s foreign policy options are shaped by the contemporary global alignment—The immediate post-Second World War global alignments were based on direct and indirect confrontation between the United States of America and the Soviet Union, two power-blocs—era of the growing militarization—supply of arms to the regional allies—isolationist policies by preventing aids and financial supports— Nehru has to shape India’s foreign policy in a global crisis situation—In addition to this, India decided to follow a policy of facilitating the development of big-business—India’s development path had to completely depend on the global forces—Therefore, India’s foreign policy of nonalignment and self-reliance in industrial development had to make many compromises—V. P. Dutt in his India’s Foreign Policy argues that Independent India’s foreign policy had been shaped by the Prime Minister Nehru in the years from 1947 to 1964—India was undergoing a phase of severe crisis—the economy was severely strained, and shortage of food, fertilizers, and other basic consumer goods—India had to heavily depend on foreign aid—Sino-Indian conflict and Indo-Pak conflicts worsened the crisis situation—these conflicts exposed India’s military weakness—these conflicts also limited India’s aspirations as a regional power when Pakistan and China formed an unofficial alliance—In this context, as V. P. Dutt argues India had to turn to the United States for aid—Nonalignment, the hallmark of India’s foreign policy, was thus in danger—[V. P. Dutt, India’s Foreign Policy (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1984)] India and the post-Second World War Global imperialism:[the most common use of the term imperialism in reference to the economic and political relationship between advanced capitalist countries and backward countries]—As John Weeks argues since the Second World War the word imperialism has become synonymous with the oppression and exploitation of weak, impoverished countries by powerful ones [John Weeks, Capital and Exploitation, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981)–Imperialism refers to the process of capitalist accumulation on a world scale in the ear of monopoly capitalism— 1

What is the nature of imperialism in the post-World War II period? Can we argue that the foreign policy decisions of the advanced capitalist countries were imperialistic in nature? Harry Magdoff argues: While the imperialist powers did not give up the colonies gladly or easily, the imperialist powers did not give up the colonies gladly or easily, the main purpose of colonialism had been achieved prior to the new political independence: the colonies had been intertwined with the world capitalist markets; their resources, economies, and societies had become adapted to the needs of the metropolitan centres. The current task of imperialism now became to hold on to as many of the economic and financial benefits of these former colonies as possible. And this of course meant continuation of the economic and financial dependencies of these countries on the metropolitan centres. The organizing of the postwar imperialist system proceeded through the medium of the international agencies established towards the end of the ear: the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund—in each of which the United States was able, for various reasons, to exercise the leading role. The system was consolidated through the activities of UNRRA [United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration], the Marshal Plan [the US pan to provide financial aid to Western Europe to assist their post-War reconstruction projects. But the plan heavily favoured the US military, industrial and international trade interests], and the several economic and military aid programs financed and controlled form Washington.” [Harry Magdoff, Imperialism without Colonies (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2003), pp. 46-7] Thus, we need to explore the imperialistic elements in the post-Second World War US foreign policy to understand the global context—because the global capitalism was crucial in shaping India’s foreign policyPaul Baran and Paul Sweezy write: The hierarchy of nations which make up the capitalist system is characterized by a complex set of exploitative relations. Those at the top exploit in varying degree all the lower layers, and similarly those at any given level exploit those below them until we reach the very lowest layer which has no one to exploit. At the same time, each unit at a given level strives to be the sole exploiter of as large a number as possible of the units beneath it. Thus we have a network of antagonistic relations pitting exploiters against exploited and rival exploiters against each other. Disregarding juridical categories, we can call those at or near the top of the hierarchy, “metropolises” and those at or near the bottom “colonies.” The sphere of exploitation of a given metropolis, from which rivals are more or less effectively excluded, is its “empire.” Some in the intermediate layers may become incorporated into an empire, with one occasionally even brining an empire of its own along with 2

its (for example, Portugal and the Portuguese empire as subordinate units within the larger British empire); others in the intermediate layers may succeed in retaining a relative independence, as the Untied States did during roughly its first century and a half of nationhood. To explain why Untied States military needs expanded rapidly during the postwar [World War II] period, we have to go beyond a theory based on past capitalist experience and take account of a new historical phenomenon, the rise of a world socialist system as a rival and alternative to the world capitalist system. Why should the rise of a socialist rival generate steadily mounting military needs on the part of the capitalist leader nations? Official and unofficial molders of public opinion—from Presidents and Secretaries of States to small-town editorial writers have a ready answer: The United States must protect the “free world” against the threat of Soviet (or Chinese) aggression. (Baran and Sweezy: 1966, 183-4) [For further details see, Paul Baran and Paul M. Sweezy, Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1966)]— What was India’s foreign policy reaction to the U.S led anti-communist campaign? A study on a particular country’s foreign policy has to consider two broad questions: 1) the relations among advanced capitalist countries—imperialist rivalry, 2) the impact of capitalism on these former colonies— After the Second world war, the imperialist countries evolved a strategy of military pacts and alliances with the newly liberated countries of the Third World (Bhambri:1982, 51)—However, India refused to join any military alliance with the imperialist power blocs—India also refused to give space to develop military base of the imperialist within its territory—India also refused to join the U. S. led global campaign against communism—India recognized the People’s Republic of China as an independent Nation-State—even during the Sino-Indian dispute of 1962, India refused to join an anti-Communist military alliance—In this Context, Bhambri argues that India’s foreign policy of non-alignment has some anti-imperialist features—At the same time, Indian ruling and industrial elites made several compromises with world monopoly capitalism by promoting metropolitan-technology dependent (massive import of technologies) economic development—there was no genuine policy of self-reliant economic development—this was central to India’s foreign policy concerns—Specifically India with its technology dependent industrialization was not in a position to afford isolationism—

3

Bhambri argues: “India’s foreign policy clearly reflects the dual tendencies of the Indian bourgeoisie. During the last the last three decades [1950s to 1970s], India has stood against imperialist pressures, but it has also made humiliating compromises such as the devaluation of the India rupee in 1966 and the acceptance of the IMF’s ‘conditionality’ clause in 1981. Such a contradictory character of the bourgeoisie demands the exercise of pressure by the mass parties on foreign policy. India’s foreign policy has two faces Its positive aspect is that India, unlike many Third World Countries, is not a part of any imperialist alliance system. Formally or informally, India is not a member of any anti-communist military or political bloc such as the ASEAN countries are. The negative aspects of India’s foreign policy flow from its domestic economic and social policies.” (C P Bhambri: 1982, 55) At the same time, India’s economic condition in the 1950s could not allow a strong non-aligning policy—For instance, in 1951 India had to request the U. S. for two million tons of food grains— In response to this request The Times of India reported: “India’s Request for U. S. Food Grains: Mr. Nehru’s Foreign Policy Arouses Opposition”-Even while criticizing, The Times of India acknowledged Nehru’s uncompromising antiimperialist stand: “Unrealistic Approach Towards Asia: Pandit Nehru’s Criticism of Foreign Policy of Powers”, Times of India, 17 Oct. 1950, p. 2 The countries of Asia, Pandit Nehru said, “are developing or wish to develop democratic institutions. Most of them are opposed to totalitarianism as represented by either Communism or Fascism. World Communism in its expansionist aspect, just as any other expansionist movement, is considered a danger to peace and freedom.” As far as new China was concerned, the Prime Minister observed, it had a coalition Government devoted to economic reconstruction, although its leaders today were Communists. Answering criticisms of India’s foreign policy in the American press, Pandit Nehru said that India did not claim infallibility of judgement, not did she recognise such infallibility of judgement and monopoly of rectitude in any other country. It was unreasonable to expect unanimity of opinion on momentous international issues, and it was equally unreasonable to seek peace by taking steps which made its realization more difficult. “The crisis of the world requires every country to search its conscience and seek ways of action which lead to the peace which we all desire. We cannot sacrifice tomorrow because of the passion today.

4

5