|
Round
The World
New Delhi, 11 June 2021
India’s Foreign
Policy
IT’S TIME TO RETHINK
By DrD.K.Giri
(Prof. International Politics,
JIMMC)
The Forum of Former Ambassadors of India,
wrote a piece on 5th June in a leading daily titled ‘Playing down the
external threat, why criticism of PM Modi's Foreign policy is unfair’.As an
independent observer and a student of India’s foreign policy, I would like to
engage with the issuesraised by the Excellencies and contend that there has to
be criticism wherever appropriate and constructive in the interest of the
country.
Although foreign policy is usually based on a
consensus across political parties, an internal debate on its strategy and function
will not be out of place. Their letter is premised on three issues which are debatable;
so instead of criticism of Modi’s foreign policy this piece calls for a serious
rebuttal of these premises.
First, they rationalise Modi’s foreign policy
by invoking what was done by his predecessors from his own party, Atal Bihari
Vajpayee and Congress Prime Ministers like Manmohan Singh and Narshimha Rao. They
say Vajpayee made India nuclear,which was endorsed and legitimatised by the
historic nuclear agreement signed between George WBush and Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh. The nuclear project is understandable as it broke the monopoly
imposed through the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)by the nuclear ‘haves’ for denying
access to nuclear energy, peaceful or otherwise to the ‘have-nots’.
They say the dialogue with Pakistan broke
down under the UPA. Yes, but it was expected that Modi should take fresh
initiatives in foreign policy and make radical departure from past traditions
set by leaders, including the first Prime Minister Pandit Nehru, who was considered
the architect of India’s foreign policy. The strategic shift couldhave included
perhaps normalising relationship with Pakistan,as steady and healthy relation
with Islamabad based on peaceful coexistence good neighbourliness could be
better for both the countries as well as the South Asian region; while it
excluded the interference by external powers including their arms sale. So that
wasa miss.
They appreciate Modi’s personal equations
with world leaders as a sign of success. But as careerdiplomats, they should
know that while personal chemistry and charm contribute to enhancing bilateral relations,
that is not enough. In fact, overdoing it by overriding diplomatic normsand
protocols could be counter-productive. Take for instance, the endorsement of Donald
Trump’s candidature by Modi was a diplomatic naivety. The Group of Ambassadors
said it was a great success, when, in Texas (‘Howdy Modi’ conclave), both the leaders
addressed over 50,000 people of Indian Diaspora. However, in a foreign country
backing one of the candidates was not in line with diplomatic protocols. And
look at the results. President Trump lost and we are dealing with aPresident
whom we opposed during the elections.
Likewise, Modi’s,‘swing and stroll diplomacy’
with Xi Jinping, walking around a lake in China and the beach in India, did not
go well for our country. When the red carpet was being rolled out for Jinping
on his last visit, we did not get any diplomatic dividend, whereas acountry
like Nepal took the pretext of India warming up to China,signed a slew of
agreements and walked deeper into Beijing’s bear hug. We know the consequences
of Jinping’s leadership,expansionist, aggressive, and autocratic as it is, on India.
Third example is the talk of personal
friendship with Israeli Prime MinisterBenjamin Netanyahu. Again, both Netanyahu
and Modi presented their personal chemistry as a beacon for good diplomacy and
bilateral relations.Netanyahu has been ever so controversial, who survives by
waging wars on helpless Palestinians.
Fourthly, the friendship with Shinzo Abe of Japan.
New Delhi has a growingrelationship with Tokyo bilaterally and within Quad, not
because of individuals, it is because of confluence of interest of two countries.Anyway,
Abe withdrew from the premiership for nobody knows why.New Delhi now deals with
a new Prime Minister.
Finally,recall Modi made a dash to Pakistan
in a stopoverenroute from Russia via Afghanistan without perhaps a schedule. He
popped by to wish happy birthday to then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who was
going to be 66 in 2015.But did that help in the light of whatever happened to
Sharif.Our relationship even during his tenure deteriorated.All in all,
bilateralism grows when there is comprehensive links between two countries not
just two leaders who come and go. Like the English poet Tennyson said in Brook,‘men
may come and men may go, but I go on forever’. The countries and its people
outlast individuals.
Now the third premise is therelationship with
China and USA. The contention here is that India is continuing with the policy
of selective engagement with China, growing attachment with the US and
maintaining good relationship with Russia. They say India is attending
regularly meetings of G20, BRICS and SCO. Let us see how practical and
beneficial this position is.
Under the chairmanship of India,BRICS foreign
ministers meeting took place on 31st May. AResolution that emanated
from that meeting sought tocriticise the so-called exceptionalism of USA and
selective multilateralism of QUAD.How ironic it is that when India is the
lynchpin of QUAD and is perhaps the key stakeholder,is a party to a resolution
which is critical of India’s role and perspectives in the region.
I have said more than once before in this
column that BRICS and SCO are serving no purpose for India.China is in a
serious face-off in multiple points of the Indian border. Russia is
increasingly engaging with China and Pakistan and India is kind of an odd man
out in the group.
Also, Beijing maintains that its relationship
with New Delhi is contingent upon India’s external alignment, choice of allies.It
is infact openly saying thatif India decides to go with USA, it may have to pay
certain costs. The US says, “India is at the front and the center of American engagement
of India-Pacific region”. India is their partner as a geopolitical counterbalance,
economic alternative and democratic contrast to China. But does India buy that
perspective and seek to benefit from it for the sake of external balancing and
capacity building; begin to decouple with Beijing and explore an alternative
resilient supply chain to reduce the dependence on China.
The final point of their defense of the current
foreign policy is that Modi is accused wrongly of leveraging foreign policy for
domestic political purpose. Thegroup argues that all governments in most
countries do it in order to enhance security, public expectations and
popularity and so on. They are perhaps referring to the electoral dividends
derived out of anti-Pakistani rhetoric during elections etc. There is no
problem with that strategy,which is practical politics,but the Ambassadors who served
mostly outside the country, should know that the domestic situation--
political, economic, social, cultural and civilisational -- is a major
determinant of our foreign policy.
While we leverage foreign policy for domestic
gains, we will have to use our domestic
resources for enhancing its objectives. This is a major drawback of the current
regime as there is depletion of democracy,cuts into the social fabric and is a let-down
over the management of health issues, let alone the ongoing pandemic that’s
wreaking havocon lives and livelihoods of the people.So, the mismatch created by
this regime more than any before between domestic policy and foreign policy is
affecting our standing in the world as well as harming our interest. This needs
to be repaired urgently. ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
.
|
Archives 
