Diplomacy comes of age

K. P. Nayar

Strategic Analyst

As independent India completes 75 years of its diplomatic practice, much of the world admires and praises India’s achievements, some dislike and disapprove of what this country stands for, but one fact is not in doubt. Nobody in the world can ignore India as it celebrates Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav.

A worthwhile initiative in statecraft would be to draw up a Vision Document on how external and domestic affairs can combine to better the lives of Indians.

Chance and circumstance have catapulted India into the special position it enjoys in contemporary diplomacy. Chance, because since last year, it is a member of the UNSC, one of 10 such members elected by the UN community of 193 nations. The election was a clean sweep because India got 184 votes, way above the mandatory 128 — two-thirds majority of countries present and voting in the General Assembly.

Circumstance, because relations among countries — politically, militarily and in every other sense — will be impacted by the time the Ukraine war ends. This gives India an opportunity to be integrated into the international system, a goal in the achievement of which it has had mixed results. A permanent seat in the UNSC, participation in the Nuclear Suppliers Group and membership of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation are some examples of the goals which have eluded India. A comprehensive partnership with ASEAN, membership of the Missile Technology Control Regime and a leadership role in the Non-Aligned Movement are goals which are to the credit of Indian diplomacy. It is a truism, albeit unpleasant, that almost the entire world, barring half a dozen countries at the most, derides India for not signing the near-universal Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

Since the end of the Cold War, only on three occasions has India exercised its strategic autonomy, although successive governments have engaged in chest-thumping proclaiming their prudent independence in foreign policy. The first was when India, under PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee, conducted the Pokhran II nuclear tests in 1998. The second was when he withstood pressure from the US in 2003 and refused to join the invasion of Iraq by President George W Bush. The third is ongoing — the Modi government’s decision to stick to historical truths and decline to condemn Russia for its military action in Ukraine.

Until Modi became PM, foreign policy was an esoteric, if not mystical, subject for most Indians. The Modi government made diplomacy a medium for the articulation at home and abroad of the needs of its people. Any head of mission who reported to Sushma Swaraj will acknowledge that she transformed the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) into one of the world’s biggest delivery services — passports, consular assistance, white-knight resources to Indians in distress. But she went too far. Diplomacy works best when it is used to convince foreign governments of a country’s objectives and aspirations, not when it attempts to persuade a domestic audience that the MEA exists to be at their beck and call. S Jaishankar, a career diplomat and the External Affairs Minister, has succeeded in restoring a balance between the MEA’s original mission while maintaining the ministry’s role as a service institution with its limitations.

As India looks beyond its 75th year of external statecraft, the immediate challenge is to counter a determined, multi-pronged attempt at home and abroad to subvert the country’s strategic autonomy in dealing with Russia. An attempt at disinformation seeks to give a false impression that India is out of step with world opinion in not siding with Ukraine and by continuing to pursue its beneficially transactional engagement of Moscow. Nothing can be further from the truth. One example: when the General Assembly voted to suspend Russia’s membership of the Human Rights Council, 93 countries supported the move. But 100 others, out of the UN’s total strength of 193 nations — including India — were not in favour, making them the majority. These 100 countries accounted for 76% of the global population. However, the resolution was passed because the majority was split among 58 abstentions like India, 24 votes against and 18 countries which chose not to vote. It is vital for Indian foreign policy that Jaishankar should persevere in his current course.

Such foreign policy exceptionalism needs to be replicated with razor-sharp focus on global problems which are equally India’s problems — food and energy security and water requirements. In each of these areas, pressures similar to the ones on Russia and Ukraine are being exerted on New Delhi to make compromises, which will benefit others while making Indians poorer. In the run-up to the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015, the Modi government demonstrated strength and flexibility of the kind that is needed to integrate India into the international system.

The list of sectors where India is yet to realise its full potential despite having the competence to do so is long and calls for a whole-of-government approach, with the MEA playing a lead role because it is the sole government agency with a global outlook. Digital communication and economy, especially FinTech, tops the list because Covid has given a fillip to such activity, which will expand in future. Health, space, cybersecurity and transnational crime are among others. In each of these areas, the tendency in the government has been to operate in silos and protect the turfs of ministries dealing with them. This must change.

Jaishankar has taken great pains to strengthen MEA’s Policy Planning Division. As India makes long-term plans as a free nation destined for greater glory, a worthwhile initiative in statecraft would be for this diplomatic bridgehead to draw up a comprehensive Vision Document outlining how external affairs and domestic affairs can combine to better the lives of Indians.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.