UK-India ties are fast evolving but it would be premature to define the bilateral relationship as 'special'. So says Dr Christopher Ogden, Lecturer in International Relations at St Andrews University. Dr Ogden also told Shyam Bhatia of asianaffairs how he assesses India's strategic and economic rise as exercising a benign influence upon the international system.

AA: For several weeks now British officials and experts have been talking about the need for a special or strategic relationship with India. Why?
CO: India and the UK have had a strategic relationship since 2004, but I think what's happened from the UK’s point of view is that they've started to see India as a market for their own goods rather than as a source of manufacturing. In turn, they recognise the rise of India in the world and the rise of the middle classes within India. I would also say that British officials are starting to see the world as much more multi-polar and they hence are trying to build up relationships with as many key partners as possible — India as one of those key partners.

AA: 'Special' and 'strategic' each have different meanings; one implies defence and the other implies intelligence sharing. Which applies in this case?
CO: I would still say it's very hard for the UK government to say the relationship is special in the sense that the UK-USA relationship is special. I don't really see that the two sides need to rely on each other for defence or that there's something very core about their bond which can't be replicated through other relationships. So I think it’s more of an emphasis from the UK government's side that they would want this to be special, and most importantly reciprocal in terms of intelligence sharing and counter terrorism, and — going back to the multi-polar point — future issues concerning energy security and climate change. I think that's where they would see it becoming special, but I think it's a bit too premature to say that the relationship is special right now.

AA: That sounds as if India is one of three or four powers with whom London would like to develop better ties, rather than a singular relationship?
CO: I think they would like a singular relationship, but in the current overall scheme of things it has to be one of several key relationships. At the same time, British officials are starting to realise that there are shared values and shared history between the two sides that haven't really been fully explored in the post-Cold War climate, such as a common legal system, common ties to a parliament, and common democracy. These commonalities can help India-UK relations to supersede their other relationships. So I think British officials are starting to see UK-India links in much the same way that America saw India at the end of the 1990s when people started to talk of natural allies.

AA: How quickly institutional memories seem to fade, given the common history of the two countries, the Commonwealth, etc.
CO: To an extent, but within, say, the Cold War the two sides also diverged: Britain was much more concerned with being with the West and being with NATO, while India was much more concerned with charting its own course with the Non Aligned Movement. It’s only now, as America's unipolar moment has started to fade a bit, that people have begun to see that the world is re-orientating itself — that re-orientation is really the spur for the push towards a special relationship.

AA: How would you evaluate Prime Minister David Cameron's recent visit to India?
CO: I think it was very successful. There were some very core base values that are key to the relationship. The UK is the fourth largest investor in India, India is the second largest investor in the UK. So they reinforced existing trade links, and instituted lots of key agreements covering different areas — in particular covering nuclear commerce, defence relations. The delegation was also there to try and impress the Indian side that the UK takes it more seriously, which was really the aim of the visit. In terms of the Indian perspective, my feeling is that as much as they would like an enhanced and intensive relationship with the UK, they still see it as one of several non-exclusive strategic partnerships. Some people have talked of UK-India relations going up to the level of US-India tie, but I think there still needs to be something much more definite about their relationship beyond just goods and investment.

AA: The fine tuning is just not there?
CO: It's great to have improved trade relations, it's great to invest in each other's economies, it's great to have intelligence sharing concerning counter terrorism. All these things are very good. But in terms of the relationship becoming intrinsically special, from an Indian point they'd think, right, that's a level above our other relations. It is from a long term perspective that these kinds of links are really going to have a telling impact, especially in multilateral fora when people start talking more about energy security, and combating climate change. It is then that these kinds of links and the feelings that governments have from each will be critical. But they've obviously got their problems on these issues as well, particularly concerning rates of development.

AA: If it's the economic linkage that matters most, how wide or deep could that develop?
CO: I think it's got quite a way to go. One interesting thing about the UK being the fourth largest investor in India is that they actually invest only five per cent of total FDI in India. So I think there's a long way to go from the current £11.5 billion a year in trade between both sides, especially when you compare India's trade with America or China, for example. Apart from selling goods to India's rising middle classes, there are also huge opportunities for UK companies in building infrastructure across India and for increased weapon sales.

AA: Is this the right time from Britain's perspective to boost bilateral ties, given a recent history of mutual animosity and the colonial heritage?
CO: From Britain's perspective, definitely. It's clear that India and China are rising within the international system and their rise is predominantly economic. As their economic rise increases, their political and international clout will also increase. So l think it's fairly wise and fairly savvy to make clearer links and to be very specific about wanting a special relationship to happen. As I said before, when multilateral activity increases concerning global issues such as energy and resource security and climate change, and as the international system becomes more multi-polar, India will be a very important pole within the world. So there's a certain necessity and even a certain inevitability for improved relations from a UK perspective. From an Indian perspective, it is very useful to have very good ties with the UK, particularly concerning India's UN aspirations to a permanent place on the Security Council. Certainly, they can learn many things from the UK, so there are clear gains for both sides.

AA: Do you think the negatives from the colonial past can be put aside so easily? Whether racial discrimination, or public executions, has enough time passed for the Indian public to forget and forgive?
CO: Colonial history will clearly remain a sensitive issue and both sides have to be, and I think will be, very careful how they approach it. I do think it depends slightly on who's in power in which country. So for example, if there is a Labour government in power in Britain, they will be much more assertive about how India reacts to the situation in Kashmir, for example, while a Conservative government is much more hands off. From an Indian perspective the BJP may try to use greater UK-India links to say this is the colonials coming back, that this is another form of imperialism and that rather than coming in ships, they're coming in through international capital. From that perspective it can be very useful for the BJP and other groups in India. But at the same time I'd say both countries have moved on, and both sides (at least currently) benefit from stronger ties.  The historical issue just requires an appropriate sensitivity, really.

AA: How do you compare the hopes for Britain's special relationship with India and the evolving special relationship between Delhi and Washington?
CO: What I was alluding to before is that India and the UK need something in their relationship that cannot be replicated by another power. Something unique or exceptional that Britain can't get from somewhere else — not just shared values of language, or sport or something like that, but something that binds together in a unique way. I am not sure where this can come from because with Britain and the Americans it comes from the necessity of their links from the Second World War. Where could it currently come from for India and Britain? Perhaps climate change but then again Britain could have that relationship with other powers. Perhaps energy security or perhaps piracy. An issue here is that perhaps Britain lacks a position of dominance in the international system, and thus the exceptionalism that a special relationship would require.

AA: Do you from your own perspective seriously see India as a future global power in the next 20 years?
CO: Yes, to a degree. The major thing for me is what type of power would it be and how would they be regarded. Certainly, they will become a major pole of intrinsic importance within the global system, along with the US, China and perhaps Russia and the EU. What's interesting about India's rise in economic and strategic terms is that it is a predominantly benign influence upon the system. It's certainly not seen as a threat like China often is and this gives India a very powerful moderating effect upon the international system. It is also possible that India could try to re-find how it was regarded in the Non Aligned era as a moral and benevolent force within international politics. In a sense too, Non Alignment was never about fully challenging the other powers but about representing India and Indian values internationally. From that point of view I think India can be a powerful presence, but I don't really see it leading the world.

top