Former Indian and American Ambassadors Discuss India’s Role in Asian Democracy Promotion | Printer Friendly
September 7, 2007
Reporting by CCD Program Officer Daniel Hollingsworth

The Hudson Institute hosted a September 5 discussion entitled “The Role and Responsibility of a Democratic India,” featuring two former ambassadors from India and the United States.  Ambassador Aftab Seth served as Indian Ambassador to Japan, Vietnam, and Greece, and currently heads Keio University’s Global Security Program in Tokyo.  Ambassador Teresita Schaffer is the current Director for South Asia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC, and she previously served as U.S. Ambassador to Sri Lanka and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia.  The discussion was moderated by Amy Kauffman, Director of the Hudson Pew Briefing Series.

Ambassador Seth opened the discussion with a reference to India’s historical emphasis on dialogue in a non-confrontational, egalitarian spirit, citing the peaceful spread of Buddhism 2,500 years ago as the foundation for this belief.  He said that this spirit has strengthened India’s democratic tradition while making it uncomfortable with the promotion of democracy in the rest of Asia.  Instead, he argued that India’s responsibility is to lead by democratic example, forgoing more active attempts to promote democratic transitions in neighboring countries.  The principle of non-interference was formally enshrined in the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence (Pancha Sila) signed between India and China in 1954, and this continues to be a guiding principle in Indian foreign policy and the foreign policy of other South and East Asian countries.  In Burma, therefore, India has taken an approach that Ambassador Seth called “low-key” in supporting the democratic movement instead of actively propagating democracy. 

He identified several cases in which the democratic example in India has been successful in encouraging democratic reforms elsewhere.  In Pakistan, he argued that the bold actions of the Chief Justice to resist president Musharraf’s attempts to consolidate power and the existence of an active NGO community and press are made possible by the example of Indian democracy.  He also linked ethnic problems in Sri Lanka to the Sri Lankan government’s decision to designate Sinhala as the official language rather than following the Indian model which has allowed for the establishment of 15 official languages.  He concluded by stating that while Indian democracy is flawed, “it is democracy nevertheless.”

Ambassador Schaffer focused on the effect that democracy has had on the relationship between India and the United States.  She began by noting that the bond of democracy has not always produced a close relationship between the two countries.  During the Cold War, close ties existed between the Soviet Union and India, while the United States cultivated a close relationship with Pakistan.  She argued that democracy alone was not sufficient to overcome the incompatibility of American and Indian foreign policies.  In terms of how democracy affects policy, she emphasized the important differences in the American and Indian political systems that affect the nature and ability of the two countries to cooperate.  In the United States, she noted the surprise of some Indian officials to find that a Republican President could be at odds with a Republican Congress over the establishment of a nuclear sharing agreement.  On the Indian side, she said that the ability of Parliament to vote out a government restrains the ability of the government to enact potentially controversial measures, especially given the current fragility of the coalition in Parliament.  Next, she addressed the relationship between democracy and development.  She agreed that the Chinese case allows for the argument that development can occur without democracy, but she argued democracy allows for economic reforms to be seen as more legitimate and “become a part of the system.”  Reforms in India are often contentious, but when they are enacted, the next controversy is over the next reform, not over the legitimacy of the previous reform, and this promotes a more healthy and sustainable development than the authoritarian approach in China.

Ambassador Schaffer’s final point was on the “exportability” of Indian democracy.  She agreed that India is not comfortable with the active promotion of democracy, noting the importance of “sovereign autonomy” in the Indian political discourse and that interest in multilateral organizations in India is low.  However, she then sought to characterize the traditional American approach to democracy promotion as one that is not by force but more than simply leading by example.  Assisting countries with institution building and encouraging countries to look at the rich array of democratic models in the world are among the more traditional aspects of democracy promotion that are compatible with India’s emphasis on national sovereignty and the avoidance of confrontation.  She added that while democracy can not be spread by force, it can grow after war, creating an opportunity to assist countries that have been devastated by conflict.