It is a well established fact in both academic circles as well as in the public discourse that India is weak on foreign policy. This weakness, kicked off in splendor by Nehru running to the newly formed UN on the Kashmir issue in the early years of India's independence, has lately been front and center in the news. While the country's citizens wait with bated breath on what particular steps the Government will take in response to the Mumbai terrorist attacks, the opposition has severely criticized what in their view has been a rather mild response until now.
Calls for forceful and bold moves on the outward have come from retired government and army persons, who having failed to act in even close to so belligerent a manner are now quick to criticize their successors. These calls, ranging from a suspension of the composite dialogue to a call for bringing back the military option to the table, do not appear to elicit much response from the government, which seems keen to march to its own drumbeat. Having prematurely taken off the military option from the table, it appears to be floundering between considering at least upping the ante by mobilizing along the border on the one hand and asking for more international support on the other.
India’s reaction to foreign policy crises is like a stuck tape recorder, repeating worn out clichés and stating equivocal policy steps. Unable to come up with a coherent and effective reply to almost any crisis, it moves from one to another coming up with suitable steps along the way that are considered seriously for about 15 days before all necessity dies down and the status quo is established once again.
It is a recurring source of amazement and consternation to all concerned as to why India, famous for its Machiavellian internal political struggles is perennially unable to replicate the shrewdness in international relations. What is it that precludes India’s foreign ministry and its hordes of diplomats from embracing a more robust foreign policy stance and acting in an explicitly tough manner? This answer has eluded analysts since India’s independence and there are no signs of an answer any time soon.
A retired general had this to say about India’s weakness in the foreign policy sphere, “India suffers from a weak strategic culture; most of our political leaders conjuring up the idea of a morally superior India professing peace and harmony in a world where nations indulge in cut throat competition. Value based politics is morally superior, but as we all know, that does not reflect the international realism.”
India’s recent condemning of Israeli action in the Gaza strip is an excellent case in point. This is no time for a country, in the course of reacting to the largest terror attack on its soil, to be condemning anybody else’s military actions. Nobody condones entirely what Israel is doing, but it is strategically weak for India to take a moral standpoint on the matter. India should be keeping the military option on the table, it should be considering strikes against terror camps in PoK and elsewhere, it should be learning a lesson in counterstrikes from the Israelis and formulating its own devastating reply to the terrorists.
This is no time for moral posturing and a ridiculous obsequiousness to god knows whom; Iran? Saudi Arabia? It is high time India knew its friends from its enemies and engaged in realistic foreign policy. No longer must it remain holier than thou.
Posts
Thats one long post!
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with some of what you are saying, I think taking the military option off the table was necessary. Conflict between India and Pakistan has been incessant, it is nowhere near as bitter as the conflict between Israel and its surrounding countries. Maintaining some kind of diplomatic dialogue is necessary if there to be a peaceful solution to current problems. In addition, the fact that both countries have nuclear weapons reinforces the point that any military conflict could possibly escalate very quickly. Given this, taking the military option off makes more sense.
ReplyDeleteFor better or for worse, moral superiority and value politics are inseparable from the Indian identity. I agree that matters seem to regress to the status quo very quickly, but the solution should be gradual, consistent pressure on Pakistan rather than rash, overt action. India has many more friends than Pakistan these days, and it is obvious that its economic influence throughout the world is rising. Using this influence, and given enough time, India can definitely put enough pressure on Pakistan to force some kind of action against these supposed "non-state actors".
This may not occur immediately, but considering the prospects of both countries in the next 10-20 years, it is obvious that India is going to be so far ahead of Pakistan that many countries will have to reconsider their relationships in South Asia (mainly the USA and China). When this point comes around, India's foreign policy will have succeeded.
Until then, India definitely needs to look inward, and improve its internal security. It is true that Pakistan should not have allowed such an attack to have been so elaborately planned within its borders, but it is also true that Mumbai should not have been so helpless.
As with anything in India, action takes time. However, a measured, well contemplated approach will be more successful in the end then an immediate but perhaps myopic one.
I think you miss my point.
ReplyDeleteKeeping the military option on the table is not a tactical move, it is a strategic one. It does not mean you are going to attack, but it keeps the opposition guessing, and it is extremely important for public relations and the mood the country is in.
The question is not whether India or Pakistan will come out on top at the end of this. It is more a question of how India looks to play its foreign policy battles from here on.
India has always given as an excuse for its futility in foreign policy looking at the big picture and the long run, much like you do. Remember though, like someone very eminent once said, "In the long run we're all dead".
India is already far ahead of Pakistan economically. The US allies with Pakistan to serve its own purposes not ideologically or as a counter to India. For other purposes, such as trade and increasingly security, it also allies with India hence the pressure that they have put on Pakistan to take action. Similarly, China is a master of aligning itself with whatever suits its own needs. Our foreign policy needs to take a page out of the US and China's and worry less about moral condemnation and more about our own immediate needs.
ReplyDeleteLinking the condemnation of the Israel attacks to the foreign policy decision of taking military action against Pakistan off the table is naive at best, Mr. Lucifer. Playing mind games is the hobby of politicians who lack substance. Fact is you need to call things out for what they are.
ReplyDeleteIf India were to in any way support the Israeli actions, then it faces a whole host of moral questions. And not condemning Israel in this case is equivalent to silently supporting their actions.
If Hamas deserves punishment for rocketing Israeli settlements, then we have to ask ourselves whether we are prepared to deal with the consequences of our own government funding the Taliban and providing them with weapons to instigate trouble on Pakistan's western borders for the last 36 months?
Mr.Azad,
ReplyDeleteI disagree that silence in this instance is equivalent to condoning. It is no more so than China remaining silent on the Mumbai attacks and the role of Pakistanis in them.
I felt it was strategically unwarranted for India to be passing judgment on Israeli actions at the time. Let me remind you this post was written at the onset of Israeli action in Gaza, much before the situation became as bad as it did. At that time India should not have considered itself in a position to pass such judgment. I am not talking about the moral questions here, simply the strategic implications.