Kissinger’s academic and intellectual journey shaped his conviction that personal beliefs, ideologies, values, and moral considerations often take a back seat when dealing with intricate actors on the world stage.
The most controversial US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, passed away last week. Kissinger celebrated his 100th birthday in May earlier this year and held the rare distinction of counselling successive American Presidents since the 1960s. The statesman’s legacy is larger than life and varies incredibly depending on whom one asks. He personified the American ideal during the turbulent Cold War era. His endeavours in fostering peace with the Soviet Union, evident in disarmament treaties and détente, resolving the Vietnam War (earning him a Nobel Peace Prize), and notably, the diplomatic opening to China, are hailed as achievements that positioned Washington advantageously in the Cold War. However, critics point to his flouting of international law, human rights abuses—especially in Cambodia—and the forceful manipulation of American power. As a result, Kissinger remains a controversial figure in international politics, leaving a lasting impact on how he navigated the complexities of his time.
A brilliant academic and professor who was a realist, many professors would aspire to be as powerful as he was and many professional diplomats would love to have his academic brilliance and well-studied writings.
In the context of India, Kissinger’s narrative was often tinged with negativity, primarily stemming from his role during the 1971 war with Pakistan. This conflict, a pivotal event in South Asian history, resulted in the creation of Bangladesh and significantly altered the regional power dynamics in India’s favour for the subsequent three decades. The animosity toward Kissinger in Indian strategic circles is multifaceted. The US decision to deploy the USS Enterprise in the Bay of Bengal was undeniably a source of tension and concern for India during that critical period, which is attributable to Kissinger. There is also the personal language of Kissinger aimed at Indians as a populace and against Indira Gandhi. Another source of resentment lies in the perception that he played a role in integrating China into the global community. Critics argue that Kissinger’s policies allowed China to emerge as a formidable economic force on the world stage. As such, he is viewed as accountable for enabling China’s partnership with the US that invariably left India on the sidelines vis-à-vis the US.
Therefore, the suspicion and disdain directed at Kissinger in Indian strategic circles are rooted in the belief that his actions ultimately undermined Indian interests. By fostering ties with China, Kissinger inadvertently contributed to a geopolitical landscape where India found itself in a precarious position vis-à-vis the United States. The repercussions of this perceived neglect continue to reverberate, shaping India’s stance on global affairs and its diplomatic relationships.
Kissinger’s enduring legacy casts a profound shadow over the annals of international politics. Whether one deems his actions virtuous or misguided, the repercussions are destined to echo across the corridors of global power for years to come. Despite dissenting voices that downplay his impact, a closer examination underscores the magnitude of his influence, especially in the ongoing discourse surrounding China’s role in world affairs.
Detractors may dismiss the notion of Kissinger’s far-reaching effects but consider the contemporary conversations on China’s ascendancy in global politics. The debate intensifies as analysts ponder the consequences of Kissinger’s pivotal encounter with Mao Zedong. Speculation arises: Without that historic meeting with Mao that Islamabad enabled, would China wield the same geopolitical influence it does today? The implications extend to its ominous spectre over the South China Sea, China’s expansive reach into the Indo-Pacific region, military interventions abroad, and the controversial Belt and Road Initiative.
While some may question the validity of such hypothetical scenarios, it is imperative to confront the reality before us. Embracing the principles of realism in international relations, Kissinger navigated the complex terrain of diplomacy with an unwavering commitment to perceiving things as they are. His application of realist theories in practical diplomatic scenarios has given rise to what is commonly known as realpolitik—a legacy that continues to shape the course of global affairs.
Acknowledging the negative impact of Kissinger’s actions on India, especially during the 1971 war with Pakistan, is crucial. At the same time, it is important to recognize the nuances of Kissinger’s approach and the strategic lessons embedded in his realpolitik philosophy. While his actions may have had detrimental consequences for India in certain instances, they also provide valuable insights into the pragmatic application of realpolitik—the pursuit of national interests through practical and realistic means.
Indeed, Kissinger’s academic background plays a pivotal role in understanding the foundation of his approach, as highlighted in Niall Ferguson’s book “Kissinger: 1923-1968: The Idealist”. The core tenet of Kissinger’s scholarly and later policy endeavours revolves around the centrality of power in global politics. His emphasis on power dynamics underscores a realist perspective where self-interest serves as a fundamental guiding principle for state actions.
Kissinger’s academic and intellectual journey shaped his conviction that personal beliefs, ideologies, values, and moral considerations often take a back seat when dealing with intricate actors on the world stage. The pragmatic realization that pursuing a national interest is a driving force in international relations is a key takeaway from his academic insights. This perspective influenced his policymaking, where a clear-eyed understanding of power dynamics and the prioritization of self-interest guided his approach to navigating the complexities of global politics.
Kissinger’s pragmatic and calculated approach can serve as a valuable tool for India in navigating complex strategic matters, complementing the empathetic elements introduced by the Modi government. Whether addressing issues related to Hindus or facing scrutiny over citizenship policies, Kissinger’s thoughts and ideas provide a framework for advancing national interests with a resolute focus.
Countries like Israel have successfully employed a similar approach by blacklisting, denying or even withdrawing investments from the groups and institutions associated with anti-Semitism, showcasing the efficacy of strategic assertiveness. In India, figures like K. Subramaniam have championed a mindset that places national interests as paramount, indifferent to sentimental considerations. Subramaniam’s influence is particularly evident in shaping India’s nuclear policy, a decision that defied conventional wisdom and mainstream opinions, including reservations from figures like Nehru.
In conclusion, while delving into the discourse on Kissinger provides insights into the complexities of statesmanship, it is essential to critically approach his practices in diplomacy and realpolitik. Adapting such strategies to India’s diplomatic endeavours requires a nuanced understanding, acknowledging the need for a foreign policy that is both assertive and self-reliant. Striking a balance between pragmatism and a commitment to being a force for good in international politics is the key as India charts its course on the global stage.
Prof Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is the Vice Chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University.