Nationalism Is Cornerstone of BJP's Foreign Policy
By Dr. Saradindu Mukherji

Nationalism and national interest have been the characteristic features of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). But then the BJP has looked upon the entire world as one family.

The espousal of bona fide national interest, especially its commitment to cultural nationalism, has often colored other views of the BJP as a party believing in jingoism. But nationalism has a different connotation in the Indian context. It is certainly far removed from what Monroe, Palmerstone, Bismarck and Tanaka did for their countries.

As for the BJP's supreme concern for territorial integrity, it stands committed to the national pledge to make China vacate the territories it occupied during the 1962 war. At the time of the Chinese invasion, Indian Communists supported the Chinese, and Nehru could not do much.

Similarly, unlike all others, the Bharatiya Jan Sangh. which transformed into the BJP in 1977, had opposed the transfer of Berubari to East Pakistan, and more recently the transfer of Tin Bigha to Bangladesh. When a portion of Kachch was handed to Pakistan in 1965, Deendayal Upadhaya led a demonstration against Pakistan and A. Vajpayee taunted the government for practicing what he called international "bhoodan."

Sticking to that line, the BJS criticized the government on returning Haji Pir to Pakistan at Tashkhent. Again treading a lonely turf, the BJS accused Indira Gandhi of a "sellout"on the Simla accord with Pakistan on Kashmir, arguing that India could have had the Line of Control converted into an international boundary.

That takes us to one of the biggest challenges India's foreign policymakers face -- how to resolve the Kashmir problem. The BJP has maintained from the beginning that the root of the problem lies with the Nehru-Mountbatten original sin of granting article 370 and then internationalizing the issue by placing it before the United Nations.

Once in a while, India's rulers, as Prime Minister Rao did some time ago, may suddenly call for an end to Pakistan's illegal occupation of part of Kashmir. But that has turned out to be empty rhetoric in the absence of a consistent and coherent policy for Jammu and Kashmir.

Against that, the BJP has presented the policymakers with a comprehensive plan. Since the Jan Sangh days, it has been seeking Jammu and Kashmir's total integration with India. Its founder, Syama Prasad Mookherji, realizing the fatal flaw in the government's approach, led a sustained mass movement, then paid the ultimate price when he died in Sheikh Abdullah's jail.

While there is some haziness about the BJP's official line on the applicability of "hot pursuit" regarding the terrorist bases in Pakistan, several of the party's top leaders have publicly urged the international community to brand Pakistan a terrorist state and take punitive measures against it.

But any such projection of Pakistan would depend on the government's ability to publicize the nature, extent and ideology behind the ethnic cleansing of the entire Hindu-Sikh population from the Kashmir Valley, and the transformation of citizens into refugees.

In the absence of any such drive on the part of South Block, especially in its failure to make the best possible use of various international forums such as the sessions of the U.N. Human Rights Commission at Geneva, the Indian stand is weakened. The exigencies of domestic politics dictate against such a suicidal policy.

Moreover, the government's effort to secure most-favored-nation status from Pakistan in trade and the fascination of a substantial section of India's population for increasing cultural-sporting ties with Pakistan neutralize the BJP effort to popularize and pursue a strong line against the Pakistan-sponsored jehad.

The BJP has identified Islamic fundamentalism as the greatest threat to the world, the antithesis of democracy. But what remains unclear is whether the party accepts the thesis of Harvard's Prof. Samuel Huntington which holds that ethnicity will replace ideology as a source of international conflicts in the post-communist world.

India has only lately established diplomatic relations with Israel, yet the BJS/BJP had long demanded such a step. All the other parties had opposed it, keeping in mind the domestic vote and subservience to the Islamic "ummah."

Without being anti-Arab, it is possible to be just toward Israel. After all, Israel has never done anything against India.

The BJP has always stood for close, friendly relations with neighboring countries and has pleaded the case of Hindus, Sikhs, Christians and Buddhists in Pakistan and Bangladesh. The founding of the BJS in 1950 by S.P. Mookerji was largely caused by the merciless persecution of Hindus in East Pakistan and the inept handling of their case by the Indian government.

The BJP has made the vital distinction between refugees who are victims of religious persecution and are coming to India for shelter, safety and security, and illegal Muslim infiltrators.

Vajpayee, as Minister for External Affairs in 1977-79, liberalized visa-passport regulations for Pakistani Muslims visiting India, thus helping to increase people-to-people contact.

This unilateral concession was supposed to lead to the establishment of friendly relations with Pakistan. But whether the hapless minorities of Pakistan, Bangladesh benefited in any way, or their sense of security or dignity increased, remains doubtful.

However, the BJP has opposed the forced repatriation of Chakma Buddhists to Bangladesh. About the Sri Lankan Tamils, it has pleaded for a political settlement, not independence. It has persistently opposed foreign intervention in the island.

Also, it wants to establish a new international economic order that would not go against the material interests of the developing nations. While pleading for a North-South dialogue, it also wants South-South cooperation.

The party's "swadeshi," or economic self-reliance, is also of great significance. Opposed to the unrestricted entry of multinationals, it does not encourage swadeshi Luddites, as the renegotiated deal for the Enron power project amply proves.

On the nuclear bomb issue, the party's stand has been consistent and clear. It has always maintained that India should have the bomb.

In the centenary anniversary year of Netaji Subhash Bose, it is relevant to recall that as India's "first Foreign Minister" he displayed an ideal blend of national interest, ideology and pragmatism. Somehow, only the BJP appears to have imbibed his main principles.

It is the image of the BJP as a party rooted in the traditions of Bharat, its principled stand on national and international affairs and a firm refusal to compromise with any humiliation to the nation that has made it so popular with large sections of nonresident Indians.

In the absence of any expansionist and chauvinistic streak in its foreign policy, it would be a travesty of truth to characterize it as a fundamentalist Hindu party.

(The author is a Reader in Delhi University)

Policy on Major Issues