Reflections on Modi’s Raisina musings

Vivek Katju

At the recently concluded Raisina Dialogue, Prime Minister Narendra Modi reflected on the 2014 electoral verdict, the global situation and his own foreign policy initiatives. Modi’s tour d’horizon is significant both for the issues that he dwelt on and those that he chose to side step; hence, it merits close scrutiny. 

Modi asserted that his election victory was a mandate for bold, decisive and transformative reform that was based on the aspirations and “boundless energy” of millions of Indians. He said that he drew on this “sacred” energy in his work for the security and prosperity of India. There is little doubt that the Indian people desire a “new normal” and reposed vast trust in Modi to usher it in.

  Modi has taken many important transformative measures and yet he chose not to mention any, not even demonetisation, the boldest step of all, as yet. Was this only because the theme of the Dialogue was on India’s engagement with the world? That may be a plausible reason but still it leaves an uneasy feeling that he deliberately omitted a measure that was so important that he came on national television to declare it. This is all the more because one of the principal reasons claimed for demonetisation was its role in combating terrorism through the elimination of counterfeit currency. 

Modi correctly asserted that India’s transformation was impacted by the external environment. Equally he rightly stated that if India needed the world, the world in turn needed India. This is a message that Indian diplomacy needs to stress for India is one-sixth of humanity and India’s rise is a positive for global welfare.

Modi pleaded for an open world. He pointedly mentioned the dangers of protectionist tendencies whether on trade or migration to global prosperity. With Trump committed to making America into a virtual fortress on these issues how will Modi work for open systems? He will of course find more traction with Trump on the continuing dangers of extremism and terrorism. Modi also rightly, but surprisingly, only gently, referred to the “outdated” structures of international governance. More importantly he did not assert India’s rightful claim to an equal role with the major powers in these institutions after they were reformed. This is all the more when he acknowledged that the world was now multi-polar. Has the push for permanent membership of the UN Security Council no longer a priority or for that matter the adoption of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism?

It is refreshing that Modi while outlining the principles that guide India’s foreign policy gave pride of place to realism. He did mention co-existence, cooperation and partnership as the other three but in clearly spelling out realism Modi has done well to shed the moralistic, preachy undertone that so infuriated many of Indian interlocutors in the past. Like all countries India’s foreign policy has sought to be founded on realism but there has been a tendency to emphasise ideals and international morality. Now a Prime Minister has said openly that India will safeguard its interests realistically in a turbulent and difficult world. In doing so Modi has also rooted it in India’s “civilisational ethos”. 

Modi’s foreign engagement agenda emphasises the neighbourhood and economic interests, India’s human resources and civilisational goods. What is new is the inclusion of islands stretching from the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic and the Pacific. In many of these are Indian origin communities. If this is a reference to India’s ambition to be a maritime power it is fine but it is too tangential for the role assigned to the people of Indian origin in his foreign policy which surprisingly has no direct mention. 

Is there now a Modi doctrine in the making? The last time a foreign policy doctrine was associated with a Prime Minister was Inder Gujral in respect of India’s neighbourhood. Gujral saw India’s economic success linked to that of its neighbours. He was willing to give India’s neighbours a little more than India got in mutual economic and commercial interaction provided they did not act to harm India’s security. For obvious reasons Pakistan was excluded from this initiative. Gujral was much misunderstood for his doctrine but Modi is in essence pursuing a similar path as Gujral in India’s relations with its neighbours. He has met with success in Afghanistan and in Bangladesh as he mentioned in the Raisina address. With other neighbours the record is patchy and so Modi mentioned them only in passing. The problem as always is Pakistan.

The time when Modi set out to “try and turn the course of history” with Pakistan seems to be long past. In his Raisina speech he reverted to the standard Indian position of the impossibility of meaningful dialogue as long Pakistan pursues terrorism. And in this context he implied that Pakistan stands “isolated and ignored”. The fact is that while Modi is correctly seeking to get the international community to pressure Pakistan on terrorism, he is engaging it if nothing else than to end it. On dialogue with Pakistan the question always is if India will show the stamina to hold firm to the position: terror and dialogue cannot go together. 

Modi signalled that China must respect the sovereignty of states — the implication to the CPEC was clear —  and international norms. Despite these cautions, in emphasising that the rise of the two countries is good for the world and that they will continue their economic and commercial cooperation Modi has fallen back on the traditional approach towards China. There is no indication here of joining the US in containing China. This is a correct posture for the direction that Trump will take with China is unclear.

Modi has imparted energy to India’s engagement with West Asia and he takes justified pride in taking the process forward as he does in his Act East policy. While these engagements are moving ahead, nothing dramatic has occurred nor should be expected. As India grows, countries in India’s extended neighbourhood will naturally seek to upgrade relations with it.

The major powers find a passing reference. The priority is the US but it is good that Modi has made warm references to Russia. It is an old and valued strategic partner and should never be given the feeling of neglect as India’s engagement and interests expand. 

Myanmar finds no specific mention in the address. This is a serious omission for Myanmar is critical to Indian interests and an important neighbour. The emphasis on Buddhism, yoga and Ayurveda derives from Modi’s own philosophy; the spread of the last two as signs of India’s soft power and influence cannot be underrated but should never be overrated either.

The frenetic activity that marked Modi’s diplomatic engagements is perhaps over. Now a sober, realistic and calibrated assessment of approaches and possibilities seems to be taking place. This will be all to the good.

The writer is a former Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs