Realpolitik, a term derived from German, refers to a political approach that prioritizes practical and realistic considerations, often focusing on self-interest, power dynamics, and strategic calculations. Realpolitik is the approach of conducting diplomatic or political policies based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than strictly following explicit ideological notions or moral and ethical premises. It is often simply referred to as “pragmatism in politics.” Realpolitik is a political system that is not based on beliefs, doctrines, ethics, or morals, but rather on realistic, practical ideas. While generally used as a positive or neutral term, Realpolitik in recent times is also used pejoratively to imply political policies that are perceived as being amoral or Machiavellian. It is to be noted here that whether Realpolitik is a good or bad thing ultimately depends on one’s perspective.
It can be stated that the ongoing crisis in Manipur leading up to the EU Parliament’s resolution and India’s response to that resolution are outcomes of Realpolitik. The often alleged rampant corruption among the political class in Nagaland, either real or perceived, can be attributed to Realpolitik. Even the misunderstanding among the various Naga political groups, especially the NSCN-IM and the NNPGs, can be blamed on Realpolitik.
Realpolitik allows policymakers to make decisions based on “practical considerations” rather than relying on principles. It emphasizes the importance of “realistic assessment” of power dynamics, national interests, and geopolitical realities. Realpolitik can be effective in achieving short-term goals. In a world where there are many powerful actors who are willing to use force to achieve their goals, it may be necessary for entities to adopt Realpolitik in order to protect themselves. The PM’s continued silence on the Manipur crisis and GoI’s response to the EU stems from Realpolitik. Even the GoI’s handling of the Naga political issue is dictated by Realpolitik. This is understandable when viewed from India’s geopolitical interests.
One of the primary criticisms of Realpolitik is its disregard for moral and ethical principles. Critics argue that this approach often sacrifices human rights, justice, and humanitarian considerations for strategic gains. Realpolitik can be seen as prioritizing short-term interests over long-term ethical considerations. Realpolitik’s focus on power dynamics and self-interest can contribute to a competitive and conflict-prone environment. Pursuing a policy solely based on one’s interest may lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and potential conflicts between parties. Considering the geopolitical dynamics in the Indo-Pacific region coupled with the Chinese factor, India is compelled to resort to a Realpolitik that it is pursuing now. However, Realpolitik can strain India’s diplomatic relations and create a sense of mistrust with other nations. Another con of Realpolitik is that it can lead to inconsistency in a country’s values and principles. By engaging with authoritarian regimes or overlooking human rights abuses for strategic purposes, states may compromise their own democratic principles, as is happening in Manipur.
It is important to note that the application of Realpolitik varies depending on the context, and its effectiveness can be subjective. Some people believe that it is a necessary evil in a dangerous world, while others believe that it is amoral and counterproductive.