Aristotle described force as
anything that causes an object to undergo unnatural motion. Then, came Newton
after many centuries and postulated the above formulae but he also missed a few
aspects which were then improved upon by Einstein when he developed his theory
of relativity and therefore added aspects like gravity to the equation. One
additional aspect that matters importantly for our discussion in the above
formulae is the direction of the acceleration. This concept works in the
physical world but there is a parallel in the political world.
‘Mass’ of a nation is a composition
of the factors that a nation is endowed:
- Geography – A relatively static factor defining a country. Like the Himalayan ranges provide protection towards the north and east, the Rhine provides excellent navigation capability to the German industrial heartland reducing transport costs, US Mid-west provides vast agricultural lands and, therefore, sufficiency in food;
- Population – The fact that the French could wield 1/3rd the army of Germany in the Second World War was a critical factor as the declining population of Japan, Russia and Western Europe will have on their ability to ensure adequate manpower for industry and for their armies;
- Resources’ including energy – Japan is a major importer of all mineral resources and oil. This leaves Japan at the mercy of suppliers (e.g. rare earth from China) and security provided by maritime power for its shipping lines (e.g. US). Germans are dependent on the Russians for c40% of their energy supplies. But having the resources itself is not a sufficient enough i.e. inability to use the same like India’s coal reserves or Chinese shale reserves or Congo’s uranium reserves
The acceleration of this mass is in
essence provided by national character and leadership. While this may tend to
be a bit vague it has an undeniable presence in determining the force of a
nation. For example, one may have the resources but industrialization or creating
requisite infrastructure is part of national will and leadership. Similarly,
the Russians are known for their ‘rugged persistence’, Americans for their
general reluctance for war and inventiveness, British for their common sense
and Germans for their thoroughness and efficiency. While I will come to India
in a bit, the reason that these views are there is because this displayed as a
regular feature of their lives and in the most difficult moments. British
foreign policy since the Second World War has been conducted with a complete
understanding that they are no longer the pre-eminent power. Germans in the
thoroughness forget restraint and want complete victory; had they understood
their limitation in their conquest of Russia the outcome may have been different.
Leadership of a nation has three
important aspects: understanding of power, statesmanship and diplomacy. While
understanding of power needs no further elaboration, statesmanship is about
looking and achieving long-term interest of the nation which may be at
divergence with current popular mood and the ability to mould the popular mood.
Diplomacy is the element which multiplies raw power of country e.g. how Jaswant
Singh worked with the US administration post the nuclear test to lift sanctions
or how Chamberlain prior to the Second World War blew it.
However, the most critical aspect
is the direction of acceleration. Hitler won phenomenal victories both
diplomatic and military but the continued attack to achieve complete control
over Russia resulted in suicide, the American’s post the collapse of the Berlin
wall became the sole super power which since then has squandered significant
gains by their acts in Middle East and Afghanistan – it allowed a period for
Russian’s to resurge and free hand to the Chinese, India has in the last 5
years has lost complete control of foreign policy in its near-abroad –
inability to look at long-term interest versus alliance politics in Sri Lanka
and Bangladesh, inability to counter Chinese influence in Maldives and Nepal.
India’s over-population tends to be
a significant challenge as the resources of the nation are not sufficient and
what is there of the leadership is focussed inwardly on dealing with the
diverse challenges like naxalism, water and regionalism. Like Germans are known
for their thoroughness and efficiency, is there a common Indian character? I
have not come across any literature that ascribes a unique character to India
as a whole, it is always known for its diversity. The Indian nation as today existed was resembled
closely only during the Mauryan dynasty, then during Shah Jahan / Aurangzeb and
then the British controlled it through alliances with local kings / zamindars.
“Also unlike a planet, an electron—if excited by heat or light—can leap
from its low-energy shell to an empty, high-energy shell. The electron cannot
stay in the high-energy state for long, so it soon crashes back down. But this
isn’t a simple back-and-forth motion, because as it crashes, the electron
jettisons energy by emitting light.” – Sam Kean, The Disappearing Spoon: And
Other True Tales of Madness, Love, and the History of the World from the
Periodic Table of the Elements.
It is important that we morph from being an electron constantly needing external stimuli. We have the mass (good geography, resource base of agriculture and minerals but albeit a large population and surely no nation has the perfect mix) but the pace and direction of acceleration can come only through transformational leadership which shapes national character, a shared perception and aspiration.
