Each day, India becomes a more powerful player in the international system. With the growing tide of internatonalization and globalization, which is “flattening” the world, it becomes increasingly important to understand how the international system affects not only the individual states internally but also how those individual states interact.
India’s growing interdependence on foreign states is just one example of this. A liberal would note the economic dependency of India on other countries for investment and goods. With this economic unification comes a cultural shift. A new, international identity has formed, with specific international interests that benefit multiple states as opposed to just one. India has joined this international identity thanks to its large, young, and industrially ambitious population.
Another important aspect in viewing India from the system perspective is its involvement in NGOs and international organization. India is a member of the UN, and through this connection it receives aid from WTO, World Bank, and IMF. This influx of capital has allowed India to become a major player in the world market, and consequently, in world political affairs. This growth of power creates the possibility to shift the world from a unipolar system to a quad or multipolar system (other powers include US, China, Russia, and possibly the EU). The realists would focus most on this aspect when viewing India internationally.
From the system level, radicals additionally would focus on India’s rising economic clout. This conversion to capitalism is just another step toward the demise of the international system thanks to economic policy.
Another interesting aspect of India’s involvement in the international system is its caution toward foreign aid. After the 2004 tsunami, India denied many offers of foreign assistance from concerned countries. Ironically, it is more than willing to accept monetary aid for economic and industrial development. This sheds light on India’s new international identity, which is more concerned with its relative (economic) power toward other countries than the well-being of its citizens.
February 18, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Very good post. Well done.
April 10, 2008 at 5:19 am
This is a pretty interesting post, especially the end where you discuss India’s discrepancies with receiving aid. I’d like to know the motivations behind the state’s decision to refuse certain types of aid in exchange for others. Certainly, aid for economic and industrial development can translate to benefits for the citizens of the country, but perhaps not for those in the most need of them. It seems contradictory that the state could refuse foreign aid for tsunami relief on the notion that it could affect its political image, because receiving aid for economic development would seemingly have the same effect. Anyways, great post!