The outrage that Indian foreign policy managers appear to show at Western hypocrisy and double standards belies some of their claims about the shift to a more hard-headed realistic outlook. External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar himself put it recently that it’s “very much a world of double standards”. Charging the West with hypocrisy might be popular domestically, but there are other questions to be considered. Calling others hypocritical is generally a moral claim and a recourse of the weak, which is why strong powers rarely resort to it.
The point is not that charges of double-dealing are not empirically justifiable. They often are. States often proclaim principles that they don’t live up to. But the more important question is whether accusing others of “double standards” is a useful strategy.
A bane of Indian foreign policy
Hypocrisy is endemic in international relations, which makes this outrage from the supposedly realist managers of Indian foreign policy somewhat surprising. It either suggests extreme naiveté or the lack of sensible policy options, both of which are troubling. While naïveté can still be discounted, the latter suggests that India’s foreign policy is repeatedly finding itself in cul-de-sacs with no viable exits, and therefore resorting to making such morality-infused charges.
There is, of course, nothing wrong with using the hypocrisy charge strategically. It can put the other side on the defensive and divert attention from the issue at hand. But the charge should be levied with judiciousness. It loses its value if it is used in every encounter. Over the past year, Indian officials have repeated this charge a number of times on issues as disparate as the Ukraine war, unkept promises to the so-called ‘Global South’ as well as most recently in the confrontation with Canada.
Repeated charges of hypocrisy are tiring, based as they are on an implicit claim of moral superiority. This has long been a bane of Indian foreign policy, and it is disappointing that New Delhi hasn’t gotten over this legacy of being an international scold. No one likes a scold and the natural reaction to overuse of the tactic is that others are likely to simply tune out. This is what happened to Indian foreign policy through the first several decades after Independence—India acquired a reputation for moral commentary divorced from practical realities or even its self-interest. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s constant haranguing of the US on Vietnam, to mention only one well-known example, put American grain shipments to India at risk in the late 1960s.
Also read: India and Australia can’t go the Canada way over pro-Khalistan activities
India isn’t exempt from hypocrisy
Charging others with double standards is particularly problematic simply because it is easy to retaliate with counter-charges. Hypocrisy is rampant in international politics, and India is hardly exempt from this tendency. Take for example India’s accusations against the West when it comes to helping the emerging economies or caring about grain or oil prices. The simple truth is that India’s campaign of support for these countries has, at its core, not some higher moral commitment but rather Delhi’s desire to one-up Beijing. This is a perfectly understandable and straightforward competition for influence and power. Camouflaging it under moral claims is no less hypocritical.
Or think about India’s response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which Delhi has yet to even characterise as an “invasion”. India is fond of beating on the drum of national and territorial sovereignty but blithely ignores that Russia invaded the settled borders of its smaller, weaker neighbour. India justified its response to the invasion as being realist, “the result of very deep interests”, considering its own economic, political, and military requirements. Irrespective of whether India’s response was justified, the more fundamental point is that it was clearly hypocritical because it violated the core values of territorial sovereignty that Delhi loudly and frequently claims to hold dear.
Take one of the holiest of Indian foreign policy objectives—the need for collective international action against terrorism and particularly, calling out State supporters of terrorism. As a principle, the objective is hardly objectionable. But when was the last time India called out Iran, probably the world’s most egregious practitioner of State terrorism as well as the backer of terrorist groups like Hezbollah?
Hezbollah has been credibly accused by a United Nations-backed investigation of having a hand in the assassination of Lebanon’s former Premier Rafik Hariri (along with 21 other innocents) and numerous other terrorist actions. Far from calling Iran out, India consistently seeks Tehran as a strategic partner. Delhi’s reasons may or may not be justifiable on the grounds of realpolitik, but in leaving its own principles aside, it undoubtedly opens the nation to the same charges of hypocrisy that it flings at others.
This is the other problem with India’s whiplash-inducing switches between moral value claims and pragmatic justifications. For there is nothing more hypocritical than occasional morality, which is the very definition of hypocrisy.
Also read: Simple G20 truth is—India gained in last Cold War by playing both sides. No…
Delhi needs Western hypocrisy
On a pragmatic level, charges of double standards sideline the fact that India needs Western hypocrisy. Without it, liberal societies of the West are unlikely to partner with India. As Western liberal critics are increasingly pointing out, the West’s partnership with India violates many of the fundamental values they hold dear. If the West was truly living up to the values it proclaims, there would be no partnership with India.
Of course, this works the other way too. If India held true to its anti-Western, postcolonial, “Global South” values, it wouldn’t partner with the West either. As with all international partnerships, the India-West equation is a partnership of convenience, not of shared values. It might be better to acknowledge this shared hypocrisy once and for all.
This would also suggest recognising that as much as this is a partnership of convenience, it is a necessity too. That India’s frequent charges against the West are playing out well and providing comfort to China should also be a matter of concern to this partnership.
The author is a professor of International Politics at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi. He tweets @RRajagopalanJNU. Views are personal.
(Edited by Humra Laeeq)