From chanakya to modi evolution of india’s foreign policy

New York Times
said of India’s rules, ‘that has meant that a tiny tweak in
the synthesis of a molecule yields a new patent. Several companies can
produce the same drug, creating competition that drives down prices.’
According to the newspaper, India’s colonial era patent laws had resulted in
some of the world’s highest drug prices whereas process patents on drugs,
fertilizers and pesticides helped extend life expectancy and ended regular
famines. In Africa, for example, Indian-made drugs helped drive the annual
price of antiretroviral treatment needed for AIDS patients down from
$15,000 per patient to about $200.
27
By insisting on an exception to WTO rules on Intellectual Property
Rights, India was able to build a successful pharmaceutical industry that
manufactured drugs patented in the West using a different process than the
patent holder. Once the Indian pharmaceutical industry was able to benefit
from having both process and product patents, India changed its position. It
now recognizes the WTO’s patent rules, after having fought for distinction
between product and process patent for years.
A similar economic nationalism can be seen in India’s stance at the Doha
round of WTO trade negotiations, where India seeks an exception for
agricultural subsidies and policies regarding government storage, pricing
and distribution of foodgrains. Behind India’s difficult bargaining at WTO
lies the belief that India is different, unique and sufficiently important for
the rest of the world to accept its demands for exceptions. India’s stubborn
insistence on being granted an exception at every international venue
creates the risk of India being left out of global trade arrangements in
addition to the potential for countries like the United States simply walking
away from international negotiations held up by India. A better policy for
India might be based on give and take to ensure inclusion alongside the US

---

and Europe, something that India appears to have done in relation to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), by signing it to
coincide with Mahatma Gandhi’s Birthday on 2 October 2016.
Although self-reliance and self-sufficiency still remain a major theme in
Indian national discourse, the country is much better integrated with the
global economy now than at any time since Independence. India’s ties with
the Gulf, with South-East Asia, with Europe, with the United States and
even with China now have a strong economic dimension. Economic growth
has become a key national priority for India’s government. Every prime
minister over the last two decades has stated that India must maintain a
growth rate of 8–10 per cent and foreign policy is expected to help India
achieve this goal. When India’s growth rate fell down to below 4 per cent
between 2009 and 2013, it impacted India not just domestically but also
affected its status and negotiating ability abroad.
While India seeks exceptions, especially in the economic arena, it has
always supported the idea of creating global norms through multilateral
institutions. Critics see a dichotomy in India’s almost zealous insistence on
absolute autonomy while simultaneously championing multilateral
institutions. Indians, however, would argue that India fully supports
multilateralism but seeks to keep in check the prospect of global institutions
becoming instruments of renewed dominance by major powers. A global
order that allows international organizations to simply echo the desires of
Western powers would be too reminiscent of the colonial era. In some ways
India and the US have a similar perspective: both want to be part of
multilateral organizations but prefer bilateral or regional agreements. While
both countries support and subscribe to numerous multilateral institutions
neither would like their participation in these institutions to impinge on
their autonomous decision-making abilities.
As a champion of cooperation between sovereign nations, India has
sought membership of almost every major global and regional organization

---

possible. It has sought to play an active role in all these groupings, seeking
to advance not only its own interests but also to voice the collective
interests of developing nations. India sees itself as an example for other
poor and formerly colonized countries, primarily in Asia, but increasingly
all over the world. India was one of the founding members of the United
Nations, in 1945, even before Independence and played a critical role
throughout the era of decolonization.
In recent years, Indian activism in the UN has focused on seeking change
in the composition of the Security Council to reflect contemporary global
power realities. At the time of the UN’s creation, it might have made sense
to give a veto to only five major powers. The United States, the Soviet
Union, Britain, France and China were allies during the Second World War
and, having defeated the Axis powers, were expected to be the key arbiters
of global security. Much has changed since that time, however. Russia no
longer wields power similar to that of the Soviet Union while Britain and
France have diminished in stature. India along with Brazil, Germany and
Japan is part of the group of four nations
(G-4) that see themselves as worthy of permanent membership in an
expanded Security Council.
Apart from demanding reform of the Security Council, India is currently
also one of the major contributors of troops for UN peacekeeping missions
around the world. India prefers not to station its forces outside its territory
except as part of a UN peacekeeping force. Over the decades around
180,000 Indian troops have served as UN peacekeepers. India has