Nations and entities are made up of humans and carry the same transferred human attributes, when it comes to their identity, their stature, national character, strengths, weaknesses etc. By its very definition, a person’s or a nation’s reputation is based on external perceptions of their worth versus an internal domestic assessment. This ought to be kept in mind when we, as a nation, complain about another nation’s attitude towards us.
It begins with their perception of us, which is heavily dependent on a carefully nurtured image of ourselves, we want the world to have of us. The idea or perception of India that we want the world to have, ought to be a well thought-out strategy based on our internal needs and security concerns.
The actions and reactions of friendly nations, fair-weather friends and rival nations, depend on their perception of our reputation; their observations of our clarity with internal and foreign policy, their monitoring of our firm resolve on promised actions and their scrutiny of our tenacity in the pursuance of our goals .
By this logic, India cannot and should not whine about its disappointment with negotiations or set-backs in agreements or violation of an unspoken understanding by the likes of the U.S, China, the U.K, Srilanka, Nepal, Bangladesh and yes even our nemesis, the world’s cess pool of terrorism, Pakistan. Clearly, these nations & sometimes others, have disappointed us with their reactions to our requests, measures and actions but can we really blame them?
Our foreign policy, declared domestic and international goals, firm intentions to safeguard our nation’s borders, had never been made clear in an iron-fisted, non-negotiable kind of manner till recent times.
The impression they had of India, was that of a large, confused nation with a wavering mind on its values, goals, policies, actions and reactions to world events.
They had not seen an India with a consistent, firm resolve to stand by her goals regardless of circumstances. They had experienced a weak-minded India whose policies swayed with the direction of the wind, whose actions did not always match her intentions, a country whose diplomats, foreign policy advisors , foreign service personnel were at the mercy of the whims and fancies of corrupt leaders, a country whose political parties played petty, irresponsible political games at the expense of national issues like defense, security, foreign policy, economic policy and financial health.
Since the time of Independence, all the way up to the first BJP central government in the 1990s, the country had followed an outdated, impractical foreign policy influenced by the childish thoughts of one man that did not always have parliamentary consensus, the questionable Nehru: non-alignment policy, no first-use diktat, reluctance to partner with most successful capitalist nations, a local sub-Asian preference, not building on partnerships with countries of similar Indic traditions via Buddhism and a non-expansionist mindset (Nepal, Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, Japan) etc.
Additionally, we followed an inconsistent policy that blew with the direction of the wind at the behest of populist, political leaders eager to line their pockets rather than protect their motherland.
Foreign policy was so defective that it became a mere extension and reflection of the internal populist, vote-bank politics that reckless politicians were experimenting with – issues of illegal immigration from neighboring nations, the policy on the Middle East, early acknowledgment and tackling of terrorism was not addressed on account of a Muslim appeasement culture in domestic politics, early remedial measures against Communist aggression were not taken for the sake of appeasing certain communities in exchange for votes.
All of the above was an anathema to a robust external policy that should ideally focus on the best interests of the country regardless of political compulsions. A stand-out example of internal vote-bank politics impacting external policy, was our earlier policy on Israel, a half-hearted stand on its right to defend its borders against Islamic violence.
In the early years after Independence, Congress party’s refusal to take a strong stand on matters of international significance , a reluctance of commitment to economic and military alliances with capitalist nations and fickle-minded foreign policy objectives, caused heavy damage to India’s reputation abroad.
Over a period of time, its reputation did not improve with additional policy woes, that the world was paying attention to – India’s dramatic flair for policy change with every regime-change at the center , its continued inaction on matters of national importance including border security, its reluctance to take a resolute stand on international affairs that impacted its own security and at times, its discomfort at standing her ground against powerful influencers.
International observers stopped taking her seriously, did not care to respect her opinions and did not come forward to support her national goals. Our foreign policy, if we could claim to have had a clear and definitive one in the first place, was so flawed, that it simply didn’t matter! Diplomats and the exclusive club of the officers of the Indian Foreign Service were discouraged from offering honest, sincere, unbiased advice to the populist leaders of the country, many of whom did not care to understand the nuances of geo-politics.
Can we blame the world for the confusion we caused, resulting in disrespect, not being taken seriously or outright arm twisting against our own interests?
The Congress and to a lesser degree, other Left leaning parties are directly responsible for the near non-existence of a comprehensive,, consistent , coherent foreign policy for over 50 years!
But then things changed with the arrival of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Mr. Modi and his team looked into India’s foreign policy right away. They put the nation ahead of domestic political compulsions and whims. They worked hard, put the right people in the right roles, listened to the opinions of the nation’s diplomats and IFS officers, held discussions and in return, gave them a framework of concrete policy to work with. And hard work does return dividends.
It’s Mr. Modi’s eighth consecutive year in office and the results are beginning to show. There is crystal-clear clarity about what the country’s interests are.
External Affairs Minister Jaishankar’s years of experience in the diplomatic circles coupled with the BJP solid backing on the principle of always putting the nation first, has helped Team Jaishankar, prepare and convey a strong India-centric message to the world, regardless of reactions or repurcussions.
Jaishankar and team are able to do this with agility and effectiveness because they now have the policy-related clarity they require to work in the complex diplomatic corridors of the world.
Putting together dossiers on foreign policy including a clear intent, the negotiable and non negotiable aspects of the bargain, the variables, alternative strategies and back-up plans, is a challenging
tight-rope walk. Fortunately, the team is propelled by an immense motivation from the current BJP dispensation, headed by a leader that assures them of all the support they need.
A strong, confident nation comes to the discussions, with the intent of putting its national interests ahead of others’. This ought to be the spoken or unspoken motto for a strong, confident, resurgent India, as well. There is absolutely nothing wrong in playing fair but also driving a hard bargain in order to take the best piece of the pie, back to your country .
From this stance , the U.S or China or any other nation, is not wrong in putting themselves first and negotiating hard so must, a strong, resilient and future-ready India.
Against the back drop of this reality, each nation does its best but must also accept that they’re not always going to “win”. The challenge of this craft, this profession, is to win as many as you can or as much as you can. Indians must understand this.
We are a people easily swayed by emotions, making us prone to taking things out of context or not considering a situation from the opposition’s perspective.
Consider the recent diplomatic stand off between India and the U.S regarding the U.S sale of F16 maintenance equipment to Pakistan and conversely, India’s continued patronage of Russian military technology, weapons, parts and spare parts. While India has had nothing to lose, history is testimony to what America has gained by siding with Pakistan.
Sections of the American Press can and will dramatize India’s reaction to the U.S sale of the F-16 aircraft-sustainment and related equipment to Pakistan and sections of the Indian Press will dramatize equally, the same surprising, disappointing piece of news, in light of the significant progress made in mutual understanding, agreement and partnership between the two countries, in recent years.
Bottom line, every country is likely to take decisions that have positive economical, social, financial consequences for their own people. We cannot and should not rely on “permanent” friends and cooperative partners on the planet. There may be more permanency to some bilateral relationships than others, relative to our expectations and even that, cannot be taken for granted. It is, was, and always will be best for India to prioritize her own internal and external needs, put them ahead of every other consideration and “friend”, regardless of the circumstances and continue to play her best game in the ever-changing world of international alliances.
On a parting note, think of how the U.S plays this game and the sharp contrast in its words vs. actions, while trying to achieve a fine balance between its varied domestic and international interests – they are not afraid of militarily antagonizing China but continue to remain China’s largest customer!
India is a major emerging economic partner yet the US will continue to court and flirt with India’s neighbors, to keep a regional balance. They threw their weight behind the idea of the QUAD to fight Chinese naval and territorial aggression in the Indo-Pacific region but they continue to supply weapons to Pakistan. There are no hard and fast rules . The only priority for every country that wants to remain free, sovereign and save itself from being swallowed up culturally, economically militarily is to always, without an exception, play the tricky game of negotiation without compromising on the nation’s territorial and economic priorities.
It will be the policy of all countries to not put all eggs in one basket, test the waters for new relationships, keep the doors of negotiation slightly open, do not burn bridges or make permanent enemies, based on utopian ideas or frivolous issues.
There are no permanent friends, only seasonal ones who may wish to continue for several seasons it may be best to try navigating the choppy waters with several doses of Chanakya Niti.
Let me conclude this pice by quoting Minister Jaishankar’s remarks at a US Press conference:
“On the military equipment, to the best of my knowledge, I don’t think in recent months we have faced any particular problems in terms of servicing and spare parts supply of equipment that we have got in the past from Russia. Whether we – where we get our military equipment and platforms from, that’s not an issue, honestly, which is a new issue or an issue which has particularly changed because of geopolitical tensions. I think we look at possibilities across the world. We look at the quality of technology, the quality of capability, the terms on which that particular equipment is offered, and we exercise a choice which we believe is in our national interest. Now, in – if you were to look at the last 15 years, for example, you can see that we have actually procured a lot from the United States. If you maybe consider, for example, aircraft – the C-17, the C-130, the P-8, or the Apache helicopter or the Chinooks or the Howitzers, the M777 Howitzers – we have done so from France when we bought recently their Rafale aircraft. We have done so from Israel. So, we have a tradition of multi-sourcing and for us, how to get the optimal deal from a competitive situation is really what this is all about.”
That’s what is foreign policy is all about.
Click here to subscribe to The Commune on Telegram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.