Michael Slobodchikoff - India as Kingmaker: Status Quo or Revisionist Power

Michael O. Slobodchikoff and Aakriti A. Tandon

University of Michigan Press

Ann Arbor

Page iv Copyright 2022 by Michael O. Slobodchikoff and Aakriti A. Tandon

All rights reserved

For questions or permissions, please contact um.press.perms@umich.edu

Published in the United States of America by the

University of Michigan Press

Manufactured in the United States of America

First published December 2022

A CIP catalog record for this book is available from the British Library.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Slobodchikoff, Michael O., author. | Tandon, Aakriti A., author. | Michigan Publishing (University of Michigan), publisher.

Title: India as kingmaker : status quo or revisionist power / Michael O. Slobodchikoff and Aakriti A. Tandon.

Description: Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press, 2022. | Includes bibliographical references (pages 153161) and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2022024361 (print) | LCCN 2022024362 (ebook) | ISBN 9780472075669 (hardcover) | ISBN 9780472055661 (paperback) | ISBN 9780472220755 (ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: IndiaForeign relations21st century. | GeopoliticsIndia. | NeutralityIndia. | Balance of power. | BISAC: POLITICAL SCIENCE / International Relations / Diplomacy | POLITICAL SCIENCE / Security (National & International)

Classification: LCC DS449 .S59 2022 (print) | LCC DS449 (ebook) | DDC 327.54dc23/eng/20220629

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022024361

LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022024362

Cover images courtesy Shutterstock.com / T. Lesia; and Shutterstock.com / PO11

Page v To our children, Nicholas, Ayaansh, and Aashna. May you all grow up to see a time that is less prone to conflict than the current one.

Digital materials related to this title can be found on the Fulcrum platform via the following citable URL: https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.12330581

Writing a book is a true labor. Writing a book during a pandemic is close to impossible. While all of our lives have been facing uncertainty and upheaval, we fully recognize that it wouldnt have been possible to complete this task without help from many different people. To our spouses, Tatyana and Anuj, we are eternally thankful. They not only provide support in terms of allowing us to work on this project, but they are sounding boards for our ideas, and while they might be rolling their eyes having heard the details of this project so many times, we are truly thankful for each of you.

For their eternal and selfless love and support we thank our parents and sisters, who continue to shower us with positive feedback whether near or far. We are also grateful to our respective institutions, Troy University and Daemen College, for providing us with support that helped to bring this work to fruition.

We are also very thankful for the work of the editorial staff at the University of Michigan Press. Thank you to Elizabeth Demers and Haley Winkle for all of their support and willingness to help this project along. Thank you to the anonymous reviewers for all of your comments that have made this book much better. Also, a special thank you to the Executive Board of the University of Michigan Press. All of your questions and the dialogue that ensued helped clarify this book and strengthened the arguments within.

Several students helped to make this project a reality. Thank you to Billy Hines, Alicia Rodriguez-Castillo, Christian Knight, Zachary Greene, Kenny Luker, and Leandro Guimaroes Froes for all of your help in coding treaties and helping to research these treaties.

Page xiv Finally, we would like to thank the Ministry of External Affairs of India for maintaining the full texts of all of their treaties and keeping this list accessible and transparent. The ability to analyze each of the treaties and determine the relationship between the treaties was invaluable to this project. We hope that all states move to this model of transparency in terms of reporting the texts of all of their treaties and agreements.

The presence of global anarchy is fundamental to international relations. The absence of a global government to ensure set rules and behaviors creates uncertainty in the relationship between states. However, that does not mean that global anarchy is static. Great powers are able to establish and enforce rules of interaction among states within the space in which they are able to project their power. A hegemonic power that is able to project its power globally can create a global order and the rules of interaction within that order. Following World War II, the United States became a superpower and created a liberal economic order and rules-based regime. Similarly, the Soviet Union created its own order and established rules to be followed within its sphere of influence. This is a classic bipolar system, where each superpower has control over a specific region of the globe and has created an order and rules to follow for that region. Hegemonic stability theory argues that there is less uncertainty and less violence between states where there is one hegemonic power that establishes a global order. Following the end of the Cold War, the United States became a unipolar power, and the liberal order that it had established following World War II was expanded globally. States that were once a part of the Soviet bloc now followed the global order established by the United States.

Not all states, however, are happy with the global order established by the hegemon. States that are dissatisfied with the global order may gather enough power to challenge the hegemonic state and thus the global order. These revisionist states actively want to revise the global order and challenge the global power. States that support the global order are called status quo states. In other words, they are happy with the current global order and do not wish to change or revise the current global order as they may stand to benefit from the status quo.

Page 4 Power transition theory posits that when a revisionist state has amassed enough power to challenge the hegemonic state, then conflict will ensue. The reason for this is that the global hegemon does not want to relinquish control of the world order, and the revisionist state is eager to create an alternative world order. According to power transition theory, this is when we are likely to see massive conflict between states such as world wars. For example, one of the common explanations of World War I and World War II has to do with the fact that Great Britain was the global hegemon, and Germany was a revisionist power. As a rising Germany amassed enough power to challenge the global order, it did so by invoking conflict against Great Britain in World War I and World War II. However, Germany was not powerful enough to defeat the global order established by Great Britain. While emerging victorious, Great Britain was severely weakened during the world wars and was unable to continue maintaining the global order following World War II. The United States quickly stepped into the vacuum and created the liberal global order.

Following the end of the Cold War, the United States expanded the liberal order in the absence of any challengers. However, over time, states became dissatisfied with the liberal order and more specifically with the rules established by the United States. Specifically, over time, China and Russia became increasingly dissatisfied with the liberal global order. According to power transition theory, in addition to being dissatisfied, revisionist states must also have enough power to challenge the current hegemon. The rise of Chinas power, and the alignment of Russias and Chinas positions against the United States, is challenging the current global order. Great powers in the global system must now make their preferences known. Are the great powers in favor of revising the current global order, in other words, in becoming revisionist powers, or are they in favor of maintaining the current global order, in other words, in remaining status quo powers? Many of the great powers have already aligned themselves accordingly. For example, Great Britain, France, and Germany have aligned themselves with the current global order. They are classic status quo powers. On the other side, Russia and China are aligned and are revisionist powers. One of the great powers that is an enigma is India. India can play a crucial role in determining the direction of the global order. Will India be a status quo power and thus support the United States in maintaining the current global order, or will India be a revisionist power and support Chinas and Russias attempts to revise the current global order? Officially, India has declared that it is a nonaligned power. This means that India has declined to form formal alliances with either the United States or Russia. Also, India has chosen to maintain close ties with both the Page 5 United States and Russia. Given Indias rising power and status in the international system, it is in the position to become a kingmaker. If the United States wants to retain the current global order, it must convince India to support the current order. If China and Russia wish to effectively challenge the global order, they must convince India to support the revisionist position. In this book, we examine Indias place in the global order and determine Indias preferences as to whether it is more likely to support the current order or more likely to support the revisionist powers. In other words, we determine whether India is a status quo or revisionist power. Indias nonaligned status makes this a difficult, albeit interesting task. We now turn to a discussion of Indias nonaligned status.