As the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) completed a year in office, several commentators were quick to appreciate its foreign policy since it assumed office last May. India's relations with the US, China and Pakistan were cited as evidence of it success.

But does the UPA really deserve kudos for these achievements in the foreign policy arena? It should not be forgotten that most of these achievements were, in fact, initiated by the previous Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government. The present dispensation only imparted momentum to these initiatives. It is, however, the ideas governing Indian foreign policy in the last few years, more pronounced in the UPA's foreign policy, that are being questioned here. These utopian ideas display a lack of understanding of contemporary international politics and India's place in it, leading to flawed foreign policy priorities and frittering away of diplomatic opportunities.

Firstly, UPA foreign policy pundits have an unrealistic comprehension of the nature of power in international politics. They believe India would arrive at the high table by developing its economic power. This has resulted in India concentrating on forging economic partnerships with important powers, including the signing of free trade agreements (FTAs) with several countries. It ignores the history of great powers which demonstrates that only those powers have survived and achieved their national interests who are willing to employ their economic power to increase their military clout and vice versa. This is more so in the 21st century where economic power is increasingly wedded to military power to achieve political, economic or military goals. Take the example of China. China's phenomenal rise in the global hierarchy in the last few years is due to its ability to synchronize its economic power with military strength for achieving its great power ambitions, viz., to be the only Asian power of consequence. India will emerge as a great power unless it synchronizes its economic and military strengths to leverage them for furthering its political, economic and military goals. Even a Security Council seat, for which India is expending considerable diplomatic energy, will not make it a power of consequence if it continues to invest only in developing its economy. Developing comprehensive national power is the only way to ensure that India achieves its aspirations to emerge as a great power.

Secondly, UPA policy makers have faith in the utopian idea that resolving intractable disputes with China or Pakistan will lead to a permanent state of peace with these countries. Conflict resolution, therefore, has become an end in itself for the policy pundits. This ignores the "real" world in which India operates. The Kashmir problem with Pakistan or the border dispute with China are not the cause, but the symptom of intense rivalry between India and these countries. Structurally, these countries are so situated in international politics as to compete with each other in the security arena. The covert Chinese and overt Pakistani opposition to India's bid for a permanent Security Council seat dramatically reveals this reality. India should, therefore, not see the resolution of these conflicts as an end in themselves, but as an opportunity to weave a matrix of relationships in the political, economic, strategic and cultural arenas that takes into account this structural reality but protects India's long-term interests.

Finally, and related to the above is the equally utopian idea that economic integration is the panacea to all ills in an adversarial interstate relationship. The UPA pundits believe that growing economic ties with China and Pakistan would increase their stakes in a peaceful relationship with India and sensitize them to Indian security concerns. In pursuance of this concept, Indian policy is now geared to integrate with the economies of China and Pakistan. The current establishment has also focused on increasing people to people contacts with Pakistan in the same hope. This ignores the reality that economic interdependence will never mitigate security competition among regional rivals. The recent acrimony between the highly integrated economies of China and Japan should serve as an eye opener for everyone believing in this idea. The Sino-Japanese estrangement was more about their perceived roles in the Asian balance of power in the near future than about textbook history.

Though the UPA has completed only a year in office, which is an inadequate period to judge its foreign policy achievements, utopian ideas are guiding the UPA's foreign policy. There is, in Henry Kissinger's words, "the Necessity for Choice" to be exercised by the UPA foreign policy mandarins. If India is to really emerge as a great power, it has to think big and "real".