Loading Now

A rebuttal to Miller’s tripolar vision – Firstpost

A rebuttal to Miller’s tripolar vision – Firstpost



In a recent article in Foreign Affairs, “India Will Carve its Own Path: How a Rising New Delhi Will Shift the Global Balance of Power,” Manjari Chatterjee Miller argues that “the United States needs to stop obsessing about a bipolar world (the US and China) and start thinking about the ramifications of a tripolar (US, China, and India) world.

She further adds in support of her article that, “The United States consistently talks about investing in India and helping it be a ‘counterweight’” to China. It hardly thinks of what it means when a country is a counterweight. Creating a counterweight implies helping a country rise enough to act as a possible ‘pole’. ” If India is a true counterbalance to China, it will also consider itself a counterbalance to the United States.” She further adds, “Most International Relations theorists will tell you: tripolarity is not a recipe for global stability.”

While she raises crucial points, her analysis doesn’t fully reflect the ground realities. While India will rise, it isn’t appropriate to see India’s rise in the same manner as other great powers and compare India’s rise with China. It is important to know how each country perceives her role in this international system. Her analysis carries greater prejudice and incorporates a reductionist approach.

India and China’s Worldviews Are Fundamentally Different

One major issue in Miller’s argument is the implicit comparison of India and China as global ‘poles’. While China views the world differently, aspiring for dominance and projecting itself as the “centre of global power”. It operates with a sense of historical injustices and grievances. China believes it has been humiliated for one hundred years by foreign powers, what it refers to as a “century of humiliation” spanning from 1839 to 1949, and seeks to overcome this perceived humiliation by achieving the status of a predominant global power. This victim mentality is inherently revisionist in nature and dangerous for peace, as China thinks that it has the right to impose consequences on others for the historical injustices it suffered.

China perceives the world as an empire and itself as the “Middle Kingdom”, grounding its strategic thinking in this framework. As part of this worldview, it views global relations in a tributary manner, expecting other countries to pay obeisance to China and disregarding the independent agency of other countries. In contrast, India sees the world differently. India does not aspire to dominate the world as China does. Its strategic culture prioritises engagement, dialogue, diplomacy, and collaboration.

Throughout its long civilisational history, India has never sought to dominate or invade other countries. It views the world in a more pluralistic and Gandhian way rather than a hierarchical one. India, during its long civilisational history, has followed and advocated a middle path approach rather than an extreme one, reflecting its history of peaceful coexistence. India does aspire to be a global power, but not a dominant one. Its vision is to help and contribute to the world. Multipolarity is deeply rooted in India’s cultural soul and civilisational history. India envisions a multipolar world that aligns with its historical journey. It seeks to be a friend of the world, a ‘Vishvamitra’, and its philosophy is encapsulated in the idea of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam—the world is one family.

The US Will Accommodate India’s Rise—Not China’s

Miller misses an important point: India’s rise is essentially consistent with US interests, but China’s ascent is increasingly antagonistic. China opposes the current order, aspires to dethrone the United States as the predominant power, and rejects democratic values. China is an autocratic country, and its political system cannot be compared with India’s. It aims to export its political system to other countries, as evident in its greater engagement with totalitarian regimes, which it finds easier to deal with.

Furthermore, China actively supports such political systems worldwide, as they align with its long-term interests. This poses a direct challenge to the US, as China seeks to displace the US-led world order. In contrast, India’s rise is consistent with US objectives of promoting stability, economic prosperity, and shared democratic principles. In fact, America has already adjusted to India’s increasing role in the Indo-Pacific region, as every major US strategic document emphasises supporting India’s continued rise and leadership in the region.

Moreover, India’s democratic system is a key differentiator. Democracies like India, whose democratic ethos is rooted in its long civilisational history, don’t pose an existential threat to other countries. On the contrary, they foster predictability, collaboration, engagement, and shared strategic goals. This alignment ensures that as India grows stronger and more influential, it will remain a beneficial partner rather than a counterbalance to US power. In fact, India’s democratic system supports US long-term strategic interests in maintaining its liberal world order. India’s working liberal democracy also sets standards for other countries in this region. In fact, when analysed deeply, India’s global rise is itself in the US’ long-term interest in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond.

Theoretical Overreach Ignores Ground Realities

Miller’s emphasis on tripolarity is mainly based on theoretical frameworks, which frequently fail to account for ground realities. The difficulty with such overarching theoretical models, as demonstrated by Miller’s study, is that they reduce complex international relationships to rigid structures. The dynamics of India’s rise cannot be reduced to a bipolar or tripolar worldview; they are significantly more complex.

India’s foreign policy and strategic discourse are rooted in its long civilisational history and philosophy and its perception of how it views its role in the world, rather than a desire to “balance” or counter any one state. The cooperation between the US and India, which is based on shared democratic values, economic complementarities, and geopolitical objectives, goes beyond simplistic polarisation theories. Furthermore, India’s relationship with China—often marked by strategic competition—is motivated by national security imperatives rather than ambitions for global dominance.

Western Prejudices and Selective Narratives

Miller’s interpretation reflects a broader propensity among Western scholars to apply generalised theoretical conceptions to international politics while ignoring ground reality. By viewing India’s rise as inherently unstable within a tripolar structure, such viewpoints risk reducing India to a geopolitical pawn rather than acknowledging it as a sovereign player with distinct goals. This type of analysis involves the selective use of facts to justify pre-existing mental conceptions. India’s foreign policy actions, domestic priorities, and geopolitical engagements speak for themselves, demonstrating a commitment to peaceful rise, multilateral cooperation, and regional stability.

Theories should be used to help people comprehend reality rather than to obscure the truth. Moreover, many Western scholars tend to first adopt a theoretical model and then gather data to fit the framework they have already established. This approach is inherently biased. Setting a framework first and then collecting data to validate pre-existing assumptions and presumptions is neither objective nor reflective of reality.

Additionally, as part of the power discourse aimed at shaping realities in a particular direction, Western scholars often rely on narrative building and application of these limited theoretical frameworks, such as realism, liberalism, and Marxism, to interpret and comprehend international reality. However, it is not necessary that geopolitical reality can only be understood through these frameworks. While the behaviour of some countries might align with these limited theoretical narratives, it is not always the case. Some countries may exhibit behaviour that lies outside these generalised overarching theoretical frameworks, highlighting the need for a more nuanced, inclusive, and constructive approach to understanding international relations.

Conclusion:

Contrary to Miller’s assertion, India’s global rise does not portend an unstable tripolar world. India’s democratic system, rooted in its long democratic civilisational history, dedication to a rule-based order, and alignment with US objectives, set it apart from China. The US should invest in India’s growth—not as a “counterweight” to China, but as a reliable ally and stabilising force in an uncertain world. Moreover, whether India reciprocates to the US strategic support or not, India’s democratic rise is itself in the US long-term interest. Rather than focusing on theoretical conceptions of polarity, scholars, practitioners, and policymakers must grapple with the realities of India’s rise. India’s role as a partner, not a pole, assures that its rise promotes global stability, prosperity, and global peace.

Imran Khurshid is a visiting research fellow at the International Centre for Peace Studies, New Delhi. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.



Source link

Post Comment