In a recent interview with Austrian television, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, India’s minister of external affairs, was asked about New Delhi’s reluctance to condemn Russia for its war with Ukraine. He replied, “I can give you many instances of countries that have violated another country’s sovereignty. If I were to ask where Europe stood on a lot of those, I am afraid I would get a long silence.” Couched within this answer is the question the interviewer remained silent on, a silence that was not merely personal but also symbolic. This undermines his objectivity as a journalist. In this context, it is necessary to doubly make sure that the self-confidence in the tone of the minister stays within the boundaries of neutrality and does not stray outside it.
We must understand the underlying concepts to grasp the subtle but significant shift in Jaishankar’s reply. The conversation can be seen as a wrestling match between two conceptual frameworks: binary and non-binary. The interviewer attempts to pull Jaishankar into the framework of binaries, whereas the latter refuses to give in and remains firmly rooted in the non-binary domain.
When the interviewer dismisses ‘neutrality’, Jaishankar refutes him and points out that neutrality is a viable option. Here, he is trying to avoid the predictable response the question is steering him towards — which is to agree to India joining the European camp. More importantly, he recalls the long legacy of India locating its foreign policy outside the binary and in the neutral space of non-alignment. Thus, Jaishankar not only sidesteps the interviewer but also manages to turn the situation to his advantage, using the question to explain his standpoint.
The idea of non-alignment is a part of the larger category of the non-binary. Historically, it was used, at least during the later part of the Indian national movement, to avoid creating an ‘us versus them’ binary between the Indians and the British, so much so that Indian leaders often did not hesitate to learn from their British opponents.
Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo and others welcomed the judicious use of modern science and political ideas. Mahatma Gandhi distinguished between the English people and the modern civilisation and declared that he bore “no enmity towards the English, but I do towards their [modern] civilization”. It might have been easier for the British rulers to work with Indians who held a binary viewpoint. I think they faced discomfort and did not know how to deal with the non-binary attitude adopted by India. All of this added to the creation of the non-binary ecosystem.
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of India, decided to position India as non-aligned by continuing this legacy of the non-binary approach. There were initial disadvantages of not getting the full support of either the United States of America or the erstwhile Soviet Union during the Cold War era. Despite these vulnerabilities, this initial clarity helped position India differently on the international stage.
The non-binary formula underlying India’s non-alignment has at least two phases that can be understood by looking at two responses to non-violence. One is that non-violence is an option for the weak (tamasic), roughly corresponding to the earlier phase; the other is its opposite — non-violence is the weapon of the strong (satvic) that reflects the present position.
In the initial stages of independent India, there was a tendency to read non-alignment as a strategy of a weak or confused nation. However, it is interesting that a new and fragile country, instead of naturally allying itself with other powerful nations, decided to stay away and adopt an independent position. This reveals the courage and the clear vision of our leaders.
Building on this vision of the non-binary, neutral category, India is transforming into a confident nation that can look at itself and relate to the outside world. The confidence that underlies Jaishankar’s assertion is situated in the non-binary neutral space that India has historically occupied. To understand India’s foreign policy better, we need to recognise this ongoing legacy and its contribution to India’s growth.
India’s non-alignment is part of the more significant non-binary approach. Understanding this broader category and its associated meanings is necessary to distinguish India’s foreign policy from Western nations. While the West largely followed the binary in its politics, India, despite its initial disadvantages, has maintained its positioning in the non-binary domain.
While a binary viewpoint can initially provide clarity and strength, it can also discourage open-mindedness, which can be an obstacle to resolving difficult situations. Having defined the positioning of India’s foreign policy to Western nations through the distinction between non-binary and binary, it is perhaps necessary to remind ourselves to understand and appreciate the founding principles.
We must guard against lapsing into binaries. This is so as India is growing faster and becoming stronger globally. During this process, there is a natural tendency to forget or neglect one’s foundation. Alternatively, the demands of caution were relatively less when India was not so strong but they are more so now. In addition, it is necessary to safeguard and nurture the non-binary spaces within and outside India. When the non-binary is undermined, distorted or misused, the distinctive feature of India can become vulnerable. In this context, Jaishankar’s prompt response shows India’s strength. It is also an occasion to remind ourselves of this fundamental value — the non-binary — on which non-alignment and neutrality are based.
A. Raghuramaraju teaches Philosophy at the Indian Institute of Technology Tirupati